feedback in distance education - virginia techprovide feedback in distance education. teachers could...

Feedback in distance education:

A content analysis of Distance Education: An International Journal, 1980-2013

By

Rongbin Wu

Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Curriculum and Instruction (Instructional Design and Technology)

Committee

John K. Burton, Chair Barbara B. Lockee

Ken R. Potter Katherine S. Cennamo

September 29, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia

Keywords: feedback, distance education

Copyright 2014

Feedback in distance education: A content analysis of Distance Education: An International Journal, 1980-2013

Rongbin Wu

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to ascertain what has been written about feedback in Distance

Education: An International Journal. Distance education has been dramatically developed in

domestic and international education. It is a kind of education that concentrates on teaching

methods and technologies, intending to deliver teaching to students who are not physically

present in the traditional education setting such as the classroom. In distance education, students

have fewer chances to get immediate responses from their teachers. Hence, in order to make sure

that students have really learned and made progress, students and instructors should interact or

communicate with each other frequently. The definition of feedback is that it is a reinforcer

information given by different kinds of sources to help feedback receivers to make progress.

Feedback serves as a useful learning tool with which to interact and communicate. In many

cases, feedback may be the only learning communication between students and teacher in

distance education courses. Content analysis methodology had been chosen for this research

project in order to get a systematic and deep understanding of feedback in distance education. A

coding form was utilized to support the objective observation. Predetermined themes were used

to categorize the articles from the Distance Education: An International Journal. Six hundred

and twenty peer reviewed articles were searched, and three hundred and fifty eight articles

include the term feedback. The researcher read all these three hundred and fifty eight articles.

One hundred and twenty four articles were about sources, sixty-two were about types of

feedback, fifty-seven were about technology, and nineteen of them were about quality. There

iii

were also some other kinds of topics appeared in the articles of this journal. In order to make the

analysis much more clear, the researcher categorized topics into four specific themes: feedback

types, feedback providers, ways to deliver feedback and feedback quality. Results and discussion

were provided.

iv

Acknowledgement

I do not know how to express my gratitude to my committee for their support and

encouragement over the years. First of all, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. John Burton, for

all the kind help and support he has given me. I could not finish my doctoral study without him. I

would also like to thank Dr. Barbara Lockee, who made me realize that I am interested in the

field of distance education; Dr. Ken Potter, who always guided me to consider problems broader

and deeper; and last but not least, Dr. Katherine Cennamo, who was my advisor when I was a

master student, my first graduate study advisor in my life. This past three years of my Ph.D.

study will surely be one of the most important eras in my life. I know in my heart that I couldn’t

do it without my committee.

In addition, I would like to thank my dearest husband, who took care of our two years old

daughter and took care of our household chores while I worked on my thesis. Finally, I would

like to thank my Mom and Dad, who always believe I am the best.

Thank you all very much.

v

Table of Contents

Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………………….ii

Acknowledgement ………………………………………………………………………………iv

Table of Contents ………………………………………………………………………………..v

List of Tables ……………………………………………………………………………………vii

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………...viii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Need for the Study ……………………………………………… 1

Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………… 3

Purpose of the Study ……………………………………………………………………3

Research Question ………………………………………………………………………4

Delimitations ……………………………………………………………………………4

Chapter 2: Review of Literature………………………………………………………………....5

Definition of Feedback…………………………………………………………………. 5

Role of Feedback ……………………………………………………………………… 12

Feedback in Distance Learning Environment…………………………………………... 18

Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………………... 30

Sample ………………………………………………………………………………… 30

Data Collection…………………………………………………………………………. 31

Categories for Coding …………………………………………………………………. 32

Treatment of Data ……………………………………………………………………... 33

Social Work Ethics …………………………………………………………………….. 33

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………………34

Results……………………………………………………………………………………34

vi

Discussion …………………………………………………………………………….…52

Reference ……………………………………………………………………………………….54

Appendix A ………………………………………………………………………………….......70

Appendix B………………………………………………………………………………………71

Appendix C……………………………………………………………………………………..106

vii

List of Tables

Table 1………………………………………………………………………………………… 16

Table 2 …………………………………………………………………………………………34

Table 3 …………………………………………………………………………………………40

viii

Lists of Figures

Figure 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………37

Figure 2 ……………………………………………………………………………………39

A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF FEEDBACK IN DE

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Need for the Study

Since the early 1980s, distance education has dramatically developed in domestic and

international education. Distance learning is a kind of education that concentrates on teaching

methods and technologies that are intended to deliver instruction to students who are not

physically present in the traditional education setting such as the classroom. Students eager for a

flexible instructional form stimulated the rapid growth of distance learning. According to “Going

the Distance – 2013 Survey of Online Learning Report” (Sloan Survey Report), which is the

eleventh annual report on the state of online learning in U.S. higher education and which is the

leading barometer of online learning in the United States, 7.1 million of higher education

students are taking at least one online course. With the rapid development of technologies,

distance education is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s leading colleges and

universities. A variety of media are being used to deliver course materials to students in order to

serve their variety of educational needs. Distance education provides more opportunities for

more students to complete their bachelors, masters or doctorate degree programs on their own

schedule.

Distance education could be considered as online education, online learning or distance

learning. Distance education has been defined as, “… institution-based formal education where

the learning group is separated, and where interactive telecommunication systems are used to

connect learners, resources, and instructors” (Simonson et. al., 2006, p.32). In distance

education, learning activities which occur when students and teachers are separated by place or

by time often are supported by communication technology such as print materials, broadcast

radio, broadcast television, computer conferencing, electronic mail, interactive video, satellite

telecommunications, and multimedia computer technology (McIsaac, 2004), which are used to


2

provide necessary information to learners. Ko and Rossen (2001) reported that compared to

students who have opportunities to communicate face-to-face in the class, students who are in

online course have difficulties in getting immediate responses from their teachers and note that

they lack feedback on their work. Hence, in order to make sure that students have really learned

and made progress, students and instructors should interact or communicate with each other

frequently. Feedback serves as a useful learning tool with which to interact and communicate.

Simpson (2002) pointed out that feedback may be the only learning communication between

students and teacher in distance education courses, so feedback can be much more important

than ever before (Lynch, 2002).

Simonson et al. describes feedback as a mechanism that “ allows the sender and receiver,

teacher, and learner, to determine if the message was understood correctly” (2006, p.89). Many

researchers have reported that feedback is an important issue in distance education: Cole, Coats

and Lentell (1986) for example, emphasized the student’s need to get suggestions from their

teachers in order to make improvements; Price (1997) indicated that feedback may serve to

facilitate critical thinking, to make students realize the challenge and acquire knowledge

actively; Thorpe (2000) and Ivanic, Clark and Rimmershaw (2000) reported that students feel

disappointed when receiving no feedback or receiving only grades without detailed information

for improvement. Brown (2007) believed that different kinds of feedback influence the quality of

a student’s responses.

O’Lawrence stated, “Teaching online courses can be very challenging and time

consuming and requires extensive preparation to ensure that things are done well and that

students get feedback of posting their responses” (2006, p.49). When planning a distance


3

education course, feedback must be an integral part. Feedback should be given to students in

order to help students make sure whether they have grasped the knowledge or not.

Statement of the Problem

With the development of distance education, more and more investigations about

feedback have been conducted as a result. Mory (1992) stated that feedback is used to provide

opportunities for learners to interact with their environments for influencing each other. The

purpose of investigating feedback is to help students find solutions for questions in distance

education. However, feedback can be different in the content and time of presentation (Vasilyeva

et al., 2007). Ryan, Hodson and Ali (2005) indicated that design considerations of promoting

knowledge construction and providing timely and explicit feedback are beneficial to students.

In addition, due to the growth of technologies, there are various media that can be used to

deliver feedback, including print, audio and video media, radio and television, teleconferencing,

and computer-based learning. Moreover, the widespread usage of the Internet and related

technologies has created a platform for teachers to rethink the way they deliver their feedback to

students. Teachers are expected to be monitored and coached when delivering feedback in the

online classroom (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008). Identifying how feedback can be delivered in

an effective manner is needed because of the growth of the online learning environment.

This analysis would be used to give guidance and support for teachers to design and

provide feedback in distance education. Teachers could pay attention to the factors which may

influence the students’ effective learning.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this content analysis was to analyze articles focusing on feedback in

distance education to get a systematic and deep understanding about it. More specifically, this


4

analysis will ascertain what is being written about feedback in Distance Education: An

International Journal from 1980 to 2013.

Research Question

The general research question guiding this analysis was: what has been written about

feedback in distance education in Distance Education: An International Journal? In addition, we

also asked questions, such as what topics have been discussed, and what topics need to be

explored in future research. Since the research is about feedback, the data collection used the

following terms: feedback, feedback roles, feedback types, feedback functions, media and

technologies to deliver feedback.

Delimitations

The following delimitations guided this study:

1. Only peer-reviewed articles published from 1980 to 2013, which contained the term

feedback, were the focus of this study. Book reviews, introductions, commentaries

and responses, and forwards were not included in this study.

2. Only the journal, Distance Education: An International Journal, was the sample for

this analysis.


5

Chapter 2: Review of Literature

This study is intended to provide a systematic search on feedback in distance education.

This chapter provides a review of the literature related to understanding the use of feedback in

distance education which is organized into two topics: what is feedback and what we know about

feedback in distance learning environment. Hence, one portion of this review is a comprehensive

scholarly definition of feedback and the role feedback plays in supporting learning. The other

portion discusses what we know about feedback with a focus on empirical research on feedback

in distance learning environments.

Definition of Feedback

Feedback is one of the most important concepts in learning. One of the primary

factors that could influence students’ knowledge acquisition is feedback (Azevedo & Bernard,

1995; Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kuli, & Morgan, 1991; Epstein et al., 2002; Moreno, 2004).

However, Kowitz and Smith (1985) mentioned that there were not too many practical and

meaningful definitions of feedback.

Mory (1996) indicated that previous publications about feedback which are from

different former and typical perspectives became the resources for researchers to do research on

feedback which is used to promote learning, and most of these publications were much more

about feedback’s purpose. Furthermore, feedback in instruction developed and will continue to

develop according to expansion of theories and paradigms, and rapid changes of instructional

design in technologies (Mory, 2004).

In the eighteenth century, feedback emerged as an idea in Britain, but it was not formally

recognized and did not have a specific name (Mayr, 1989). Until 1920, “feedback” was used as a

term to describe the procedure of gaining information from outside to inside (Bennett, 1979).


6

Since then, the definition of feedback has varied according to different authors. In The American

Heritage Dictionary of the English language (1976), feedback was generally defined as “any

information about the result of process” (p.482). While in Webster’s New World Dictionary

(2001), feedback is defined as “a process in which the factors that produce a result are

themselves modified, corrected, strengthened, etc. by that result” and “a response, as one that

sets such a process in motion” (p. 520). The publication of Webster’s New World Dictionary

from 1984 to current edition has not changed the fundamental definition of feedback too much

and this basic meaning could fit a variety of situations or systems.

Definition of feedback in instruction. Most educational researchers consider feedback

in the context of instruction. Hattie and Timperley (2007) provided a point of view that feedback

and instruction intertwined with each other in order to help researchers understand functions and

purposes of feedback better. Feedback is a vital element in different learning procedures (Kowitz

& Smith, 1985).

In purely instruction, simply speaking, feedback provides as a dialogue between

instructor and learners to notify the learners of the correctness of their instructional questions

(Cohen, 1985; Kulhavy, 1977). In Gagne’s (1985) nine events of instruction, feedback is one of

the steps used to communicate to the learner about the correctness and the degree of correctness

of the performance. Cohen (1985) defined feedback as “one of the more instructionally powerful

and least understood features in instructional design” (p.33). More broadly, a student’s current

performance can be compared with desired performance through feedback (Johnson & Johnson,

1993).

In technology-assisted instruction, feedback given to students is information helping

them to monitor and facilitate themselves (Moreno, 2004; Wager & Wager, 1985). Hoska (1993)


7

pointed out that feedback is not just to determine the correctness of answers. Mory (2004)

claimed that this kind of feedback also indicates the factors influencing students’ learning, which

are “precision, timeliness, learning guidance, motivation, advisement, critical comparison, and

learning focus” (p.745). For others, feedback is mainly used to construct students’ cognition and

skills for improving their learning and performance (Shute, 2008). Such feedback, together with

assessments, may form the learners' personal characteristics (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Narciss

& Huth, 2004).

In computer-based instruction, feedback is considered as notes or illustration delivered by

computer in response to a learner's action (Cohen, 1985; Wager & Wager, 1985). Computer-

based instruction (including web-based instruction) has been widely used in education. Feedback

is considered to be one of the vital effects of the ingredients on learning improvement in

computer-based learning context (Clariana, Ross, & Morrison, 1991). Such feedback can help

students to realize what kind of errors and misconceptions they made and how to make

correction.

Definition of various types of feedback. Instructors should provide students with

detailed, personal feedback on learning process, as feedback is very important in learning.

Furthermore, instructors should be aware of the types of feedback that could be used

appropriately in a particular distance learning setting. In addition, different types of feedback

have their own definitions. The literature shows a lot of research on the types of feedback in the

educational environments. Commonly, the types of feedback most often used to be discussed in

the literatures (Dempsey & Wager, 1988; Graham et al, 2002; Kielty, 2004; Mory, 1992;

Schwartz & White, 2000) include: acknowledgement feedback, informational feedback,

formative feedback, immediate feedback, delayed feedback, and corrective feedback.


8

Acknowledgement feedback. Acknowledgement feedback is feedback that provided to

students for the purpose of acknowledging that some action has taken place (Kielty, 2004). For

example, the instructor sends a message to tell the student that their assignment was received

after they submit it. This is very important, as in distance learning environment. Some students

lack a sense of security and often worry if they have submitted the assignment successfully.

Informational feedback. Informational feedback is a response that provides information

or an evaluation (Graham, et al, 2002). Answering students’ questions and posting assignment

grades or comments are examples of informational feedback.

Formative feedback. Formative feedback refers to information provided to students

consistently to point out performance weaknesses for the purpose of achieving learning goals

(Shute, 2008). Information within the formative feedback addresses the accuracy of the student’s

response to a problem (Azevedo & Bernard, 1995; Cohen, 1985; Kulhavy, 1977) and represents

specific information for improved student performance. Other than that, Shute (2008)

summarized from Schwartz and White’s (2000) work and indicated that formative feedback may

be further defined as “multidimensional, nonevaluative, supportive, learner-controlled, timely,

specific, credible, infrequent, contingent, and genuine” (p.2).

Immediate feedback. Immediate feedback is defined as “informative feedback given to a

learner as quickly as the computer’s hardware or software will allow during instruction or

testing” (Dempsey & Wager, 1988, p.22). For example, students can receive correct answers

with an explanation of why it is correct directly after submitting their response of questions.

Delayed feedback. The definition of delayed feedback is “informative feedback given to

a learner after a specified programming delay interval during instruction or testing” (Dempsey &

Wager, 1988, p.22). Delayed feedback is not provided immediately, often occurring after hours,


9

weeks, or even months after students have finished the whole assignment. There is no consistent

main effect of timing, namely there is no confirmation to say if immediate feedback is better or

delayed feedback is better. Kulhavy and Anderson’s (1972) famous delay-retention effect (DRE)

hypothesis implied the superiority of delayed feedback. In contrast, Kulik and Kulik (1988)

found the advantage or value of immediate feedback in classroom environments.

Corrective feedback. Mory (1992) indicates that researchers considered feedback

primarily as serving to correct. Therefore, the first major type of feedback is corrective feedback,

which is any comment or suggestion given to a student on any assignments, quizzes and exams.

Corrective feedback not only informs the student if their answer to the question is correct, but

also provides the student detailed information for answer improvement and for future guidance

of learning (Kielty, 2004). According to Dempsey, Driscoll, and Swindell (1993), five types of

feedback compose the corrective feedback: (a) no feedback, the learners answer the question

without indication to know if their answer is correct; (b) simple verification feedback, which

only informs learners if their answer is correct; (c) correct response feedback, which informs

learners the knowledge of the correct answer; (d) elaborated feedback, which provide reasons

why the answer is correct to let the students go back to review the instruction; and (e) try-again

feedback, which provides opportunities for students to try again when their answer is incorrect.

Definition of feedback through functions. Feedback is an important component in

learning processes and plays different roles in different contexts (Mory, 2004). In order to

understand feedback in a comprehensive way, some researchers define feedback in terms of

feedback functions.

Error analyses. The current research indicates that an error plays an important role in

learning since it can help the learner to clarify errors or misunderstandings. Feedback serves to


10

correct errors which make error analyses important for understanding the corrective process

(Mory, 2004). Phye and his colleagues (1976) introduced a pattern of pretest-posttest responses.

According to this, an error analysis model was developed and used by several researchers. Their

research helped to understand the usage of feedback in most experimental environments. The

major consequence of Phye and his colleagues’ pattern analysis work was to establish that

feedback serves to confirm a correct answer at pretest in a confirmatory function; feedback

serves to correct an error produced in pretest as a corrective function; and when errors occur on

the posttest, it suggests that such feedback has no function. (Phye & Bender, 1989).

Motivation. In addition to correcting errors, feedback also provides motivation to

stimulate the learner’s confidence in his or her ability to complete the task successfully (Pyke &

Sherlock, 2010). Some students are motivated by rewards for their performance. Mory (2004)

modified Hoska’s work about how feedback is used to motivate learners. He pointed out that

feedback’s motivational function is to let learners realize they made progress; create a relaxed

learning environment; avoid the tendency of learners to be addicted to entertainment in

computer-based instruction; convince learners that difficulties and challenges provide

opportunities to develop their skills; increase learners’ self-efficacy; and help learners conceive

their success and failure are due to effort.

Interaction. Mory (1992) stated that feedback is used to provide opportunities for

learners to interact with their environments for influencing each other. Feedback is one of the

elements in communication model, which was initially developed by Shannon (1948). In the

communication model, the system includes the sender, the receiver, signal transmission, noise

and feedback. The information is delivered from the instructor (the sender) to the students (the

receiver) in educational settings. The feedback between this processes forms an interactive circle


11

(Wagner, 1994). Feedback can be used to improve the connection through instructor-to-student

interactions as well as student-to-student interactions. Besides, feedback is also useful to help

define interaction (Wagner, 1994).

Definition of feedback from different viewpoints. Holding (1965) expressed that the

importance of feedback makes it complicated in instruction. It has been considered to be one of

the most significant activities a teacher or instructor can use to improve student achievement

(Hattie, 2009). However, Hattie (2009) indicates that feedback is a two-way street. To be more

specific, feedback is used not only to assist students' learning, but also to improve teachers'

teaching. Tovani (2012) supports Hattie’s statement. For example, she stated “the feedback

students give is just as important as the feedback they get” (p.1). When students have chance to

express their own ideas and needs, teachers may rethink and revise their instruction based on that

student feedback (Tovani, 2012). Therefore, feedback can be conceptualized mainly from the

student’s perspective and the teacher’s perspective.

From the student’s perspective. Bloom (1976) suggests that the purpose of feedback

provided to correct errors is to avoid students making the same mistake again. Likewise, Carlson

(1979) stated that feedback students gained from their teachers help them make progress to

obtain course goals. Lastly, feedback is used as a step for “collecting information about students’

performance, their familiarity with the type of testor assessment method, and their background

knowledge” (Schutz & Weinstein, 1990, p.1).

From teacher’s perspective. Ovando (1991) believes that feedback is given to teachers

to improve their skill and knowledge, which can help them to know what students need and to

provide suggestions to students about what they need to do next. The result of this kind of

feedback is to improve instructors’ abilities and achieve learning goals finally (Ovando, 1991).


12

Role of Feedback

Theories must include feedback as a necessary component for influencing learning

through instruction (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kuli, & Morgan, 1991). They stated that “Any

theory that depicts learning as a process of mutual influence between learners and their

environments must involve feedback implicitly because, without feedback, mutual influence is

by definition impossible. Hence, the feedback construct appears often as an essential element of

theories of learning and instruction” (p.214). Feedback may play different roles in different

learning contexts (Mory, 2004). It is developed in learning from behaviorism to cognitivism,

then to constructivism. According to Kulhavy and Wager (1993), there was three defined roles of

feedback: Motivation, reinforcement and information for error correction.

Feedback in behaviorism. In previous feedback studies, feedback was only used by

instructors to encourage or praise students who answer questions correctly. The Skinner’s

behaviorism supports the idea of feedback serving as reinforcement, which was translated into a

small lock-step, linear mode with programmed instruction (Wager & Wager, 1985). Skinner

emphasized that feedback is important in instruction and serves to shape and maintain the

learner’s proper response. In the 1960’s, the notion of reinforcement was supported and

popularized by operant psychologists, who argued that it is hard to finish a task at one time, so

the best way is to test the task and divide it into meaningful, small chunks in order to ensure

successful learning (Cohen, 1985). The belief was that when a student was told that his or her

answer is correct immediately, it is reinforcing and the student is more likely to remember the

correct answers for future usage (Kulhavy, 1977).

Around 1970, doubt crept up on researchers about the view of feedback as reinforcement,

and Kulhavy and Wager (1993) pointed out that there were no systematic effects for feedback


13

during 10 years of research in this paradigm. There is little evidence to support the connection

between feedback following positive responses and reinforcements (Anderson, Kulhavy, &

Andre, 1972; Bardwell, 1981; Barringer & Gholson, 1979; Kulhavy, 1977; Roper, 1977). R. C.

Anderson and his colleagues did a series of studies and found that students will use feedback

which is well provided (Anderson, Kulhavy, & Andre, 1971, 1972), otherwise, learners will just

copy and paste the answer without grasping the information to be learned. Mory (2004) stated

that feedback improves learning only when students see feedback after they provided their own

responses.

Feedback in cognitivism. The investigation of feedback’s role in education extended

further since the emergence of information-processing theory in the 1970s to 1980s. New

feedback definition include providing corrective information as a main function. Anderson and

his colleagues’ (1971, 1972) research expounded that error correction is feedback’s primary

function. In addition, there was a lot of research supporting this function (Anderson, Kulhavy, &

Andre, 1971, 1972; Bardwell, 1981; Barringer & Gholson, 1979; Kulhavy, 1977; Kulhavy &

Anderson, 1972; Roper, 1977). Feedback helps learners decide their performance expectation,

evaluate their understanding of the content or concern about the misunderstanding, provide

methods to correct mistakes and improve performance, which highlight the informational role of

feedback (Mory, 1994).

Mory (2004) classified feedback into two different system which are: the reinforcement

of correct responses and the information regarding error analysis. Kulhavy and Stock (1989)

used the concept of servocontrol theory to compare each system as they are different. When

feedback is an open-loop system, it acts as a reinforcement that only confirms students’ correct

responses and deemphasizes the correction. However, when feedback is a closed-loop system,


14

the errors of students’ responses are emphasized. Analysis of errors provides different ways to

correct students’ errors. This system also allows students to make changes based on the feedback

they received.

In social cognition theory, self-efficacy refers to one’s ability to organize course actions

to help attain learning goals. Modifying a learner’s self-efficacy is one of the most important

roles of feedback. Based on Hoska (1993), learners will “invest maximum levels of effort to

achieve learning goals only when their goals and self-efficacy enable them to see the benefit of

such effort” (p.107). Hence, feedback can be designed to provide positive learning experience

and change the causes to learners’ achievement. Providing positive learning experience means to

help learners make progress consistently rather than just offering them success (Hoska, 1993).

Feedback is an “inherent catalyst” in self-regulated activity (Butler & Winne, 1995,

p.246). Internal feedback is generated when learners evaluate their engagement with tasks. Such

feedback provides information on effects and an understanding of the cognitive process. But in

some cases, external feedback would be needed for self-regulated learners to compare their real

performance with a desired standard performance to fix the gap (Butler & Winne, 1995).

Research generally confirms that learning is more effective when students accept external

feedback (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Kulhavy & Stock, 1989).

Traditionally, studies of feedback focused on external source, which were used to help the

learner to facilitate the ability to solve test problems or complete assignments correctly. It was

pointed out in Rumelhart and Norman (1978) that, in order to completely understand the role of

feedback in knowledge construction, one has to develop a larger scope, more careful analysis, as

well as an understanding of the temporal location of feedback’s effect.


15

Feedback in constructivism. The above studies of feedback in behaviorism and

cognitive information processing theory belonged to objectivist philosophy domain. Objectivists

emphasize that humans live in the real world (Jonassen, 1991b), and instruction is used for

students to fix real world problem and teachers determine whether students master the

knowledge. Feedback should serve to correct the wrong information regarding the external

reality (Mory, 2004). As discussed above, feedback can be treated as reinforcement or as

information correction. Based on situated cognitive theory and constructivism (Brown, Collins,

& Duguid, 1989; Jonassen, 1991a), there is no external reality that exists for students. Students

acquire new knowledge through connecting it to their prior knowledge, and personal belief. This

kind of knowledge is unique and students acquire knowledge based on interaction with external

context. Feedback functions differently as a result.

Jonassen (1991a) claimed that if every learning activity happened in context, then

feedback could be used to help students overcome difficulties within this kind of interactional

environment. Students’ communication helps them to fix problems, which yields natural,

effective feedback. Mory (2004) provided an example about students learning to play a musical

instrument to support this statement. They continuously receive feedback from hearing the

sounds that are being made to make progress. In other words, feedback happens as the result of

interaction between the students and the construction of their knowledge within the real learning

environments. Jonassen (1991b) proposed the use of feedback in constructivism and stated that

feedback should be used to guide and facilitate students to construct their own knowledge for

future use. In other words, feedback should help students to establish marks and construct their

internal reality. At the same time, the meaning of feedback was also influenced by students’

internal understanding. Feedback occurs in the real world in constructivism and Table 1 listed


16

items of constructivism assumptions and suggested use of feedback. In real world activity,

feedback is used as a guidance to solve problems rather than directly accepting the instructional

sequences. Feedback is used as a self-analysis method (Jonassen, 1991a) to help monitor and

support students for setting reasonable goals and accomplishing their objectives (Rieber, 1992).

Table 1

Assumptions of Constructivism and Suggested Use of Feedback

Constructivism

Assumption Feedback

Reality is determined by knower Feedback is to guide learner toward internal

reality; facilitates knowledge construction

Mind acts as builder of symbols Feedback aids learner in building symbols

Thought grows out of human experience Feedback in context of human experience

Meaning does not rely on correspondence to

world; determined by receiver

Meaning within feedback information

determined by internal understanding

Symbols are tools for constructing an internal

reality

Feedback provides generative, mental

construction “tool kits”

Note. Adapted from “Objectivism Versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?” by D. H. Jonassen, 1991, Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), p.9. Copyright 1991 by the author. Feedback in other theories. Feedback plays different roles in behaviorism, cognition

and constructivism. There are also other theories which support the importance of feedback in


17

education, including: connectionism theory, operant conditioning theory, experiential learning

theory, and conditions of learning theory.

Connectionism theory. The study of feedback in connectionism theory originated from

E. L. Thorndikes’s Law of Effect. Thorndike stated that feedback connects a student’s response

and stimuli (Mory, 1996). Students associate with each other, which leads to learning. For

example, when a teacher replies to students’ questions and exams (the stimuli) with corrective

feedback (responses), learning occurs. The nature and frequency of the stimulus and response

determines this association (Theory into Practice, 2003). Thorndike’s connectionism theory led

later researchers to continue studying feedback, and in more depth.

Operant conditioning theory. As discussed previously, feedback could be used as

reinforcement in behaviorism. More specifically, reinforcement is the key element in Skinner’s

operant conditioning theory. Skinner’s study of programmed instruction found that

reinforcement and motivation are feedback’s function (Mory, 2004). When students are

presented with stimuli, response will follow simultaneously (Theory into Practice, 2003), and the

use of positive reinforcement and punishment strengthens the stimulus and response.

Experiential learning theory. Tomei (2003) mentioned that the teacher is primarily a

facilitator of learning. A traditional teacher takes full responsibility for the learning process,

while the teacher in distance education shares the responsibility of learning with the students

(Theory into Practice, 2003). The instructor should provide frequent, positive feedback to

encourage students to be self-motivated. In addition, students should have the opportunities to

practice their own skills and receive timely and quality feedback about their performance

(Kulhavy, 1977).


18

Conditions of learning theory. Even though different instructions have similar activities,

such activities are required to produce both learning processes and outcomes (Theory into

Practice, 2003). Gagne’s nine events (Gagne, 1985, p.246-255) are the necessary conditions for

learning, including: (a) gaining attention, (b) informing learners of the objective, (c) stimulating

recall or prior learning, (d) presenting the content, (e) providing learning guidance, (f) eliciting

performance, (g) providing feedback, (h) assessing performance, and (i) enhancing retention and

transfer. Gagne’s theory suggests that when feedback is given, with all examples as correct or

incorrect, the student is reinforced for a certain behavior. He supports not only the behavioral

aspect, but also follows with assessing performance and enhancing retention and transfer, which

are displayed in the eighth and ninth events (Theory into Practice, 2003).

Feedback in Distance Learning Environment

As mentioned before, feedback serves as a useful tool in distance learning environment.

Knowles (1984) demonstrated that students use feedback to build their skill upon their previous

knowledge. The relationship between the value of feedback in an online environment and design

of learning activities cannot be ignored. Lynch (2002) asserted that students construct their

knowledge based on feedback experience through online learning activities and assessments.

Theoretical Framework. Theoretical perspectives on cognitive psychology appeared in

the educational technology literature in the early 1990s. This focus is on students’ knowledge

construction and active learning in real learning tasks (Duffy & Jonassen, 1992). This emphasis

has implications for both the content of feedback and the activity of students in receiving and

giving it. The primary focus was to explain how students learn, with potential for social learning

tasks and feedback in social constructivism. Holmes and Gardner (2006) extended these concepts

to constructivism to reflect the “hugely magnified opportunities for communal support for


19

learning --- and, most importantly, for providing a medium to store and make available the

knowledge created by the learners” (p.85) through one-to-one, one-to-many, and many-to-many

opportunities for interaction and feedback made available by e-learning environments, which

draws on the community of practice. This highlights the nature of feedback in distance learning

environments, extending beyond the roles of individual teacher and student to peers and other

people and resources. This challenges the relationship between educator and student in providing

and receiving feedback. It also raises the concept of transactional control in the use of social

software (Dron, 2007) where knowledge builds through collaborative engagement, and feedback

integrates as part of this engagement. In addition, transactional control is a useful notion for

managing feedback in distance learning environments.

Functions of feedback. Most research about feedback in distance education focused on

the functions of feedback. The researchers pointed out that feedback could be used as interaction,

assessment, motivation, correction, reinforcement, etc. Previous research in this area focused on

feedback as reinforcement, correction, and motivation. With the development of technology,

recent research about feedback related to interaction and assessment has been launched.

Interaction and feedback. Shotsberger (1996) emphasized the value of interaction and

feedback, since they both increased the quality and successful learning in distance education.

Moore and Kearsley (1996) believed that both interaction and feedback can be used to motivate

students to complete a course. Feedback can also be used for students and instructors to

communicate. Distance cut off the interaction between students and instructor, which became a

major issue in web-based learning environment (Mory, 2004). Swan (2002) supported that

learner-instructor interaction is the most important type of interaction in distance education and

the study on learner-instructor interaction mainly focused on feedback. This report comes from


20

an empirical study of correlation between student learning and interaction with instructors and

peers. She reported, after collecting data from 73 online courses, that frequency and immediate

feedback was vital to online interaction, especially asynchronous communication. What is more,

feedback played an important role in meaningful communication.

Assessment and feedback. Most researchers agree that assessment is crucial in the

learning process, and feedback students received about it also plays an important role. Effective

feedback on assessment is the most crucial component in distance education courses, where

comments on assignments provided through feedback may be the only learning communication

between student and instructor (Simpson, 2002).

Correction and feedback. As early as 1984, Steinberg pointed out that interactive

capability is considered one of the most important instructional characteristics in the computer-

mediated learning cycle. Students are required to offer responses to questions and computers can

be utilized to provide feedback to each individual. Here, feedback is not just expressing “Right”

or “Wrong”. The key feature of feedback is to inform the students detailed information when

their answer is wrong (Steinberg, 1984). Information given through feedback consists of “right”

or “wrong” and corrective information.

Motivation and feedback. In distance education, students are separated from instructor

and peers. Feedback can be used to encourage students who lost confidence when meeting

difficulties. Motivation influences learners performance on learning tasks (Hoska, 1993).

Feedback provides motivation for the learners and encourages them to meet their instructional

goals (Dempsey et al., 1993), and feedback serves as motivation to overcome the difficulties

(Sales, 1993) in order to increase their learning confidence.


21

Designing aspects. Instructors use empirical results to guide feedback design in distance

education (Mason & Bruning, n.d). Instructors must be concerned with providing adequate

feedback in course design for distance learners (Howard, 1987; McCleary & Eagan, 1989).

Howard (1987) proposed that feedback is the most important consideration in course design.

Hence, instructors should consider many factors to make sure that the feedback they provide to

students could help students to improve their learning. The factors include feedback source,

feedback types, feedback elaboration, and strategies. In addition, there are also other issues

which maybe include what those other issues are?

Feedback Source. Distance education is another choice for students who cannot take

face-to-face classes and numerous courses are designed to cater to this need; feedback is

essentially a form of communication between the students and instructors. Some researches

indicated that students can get feedback externally by instructors, peers and internally by

themselves. Perry and Edwards’s (2006) qualitative research indicated that feedback given to

graduate students through the internet shows positive effect in distance education. Roehler and

Cantlon (1997) stated that students provide feedback to each other in the hope of learning from

each other, co-constructing knowledge and understanding, and thus, making progress. Black

(2005) also reported that peer feedback was used for sharing and comparing information.

Moursund (2007) pointed out that when students read, they reflect on what they read; they test

what it says against what they already know; And they connect what they read to what they have

in their memory in order to acquire information. They read the materials again and again for

better understanding. In this process, all the activities students did are a form of self-feedback.

By providing self-feedback, students can reread, rethink, and react to improve their


22

understanding of the new materials and information. Unfortunately, there is little research about

self-feedback.

Feedback types. They purpose of investigating feedback is to help students find solutions

for questions in distance education. Feedback can be different in the content and time of

presentation (Vasilyeva et al., 2007). These authors reported that feedback properties are

especially important in application since students have different kinds of individual

characteristics and goals. Types of feedback have been investigated broadly. Mory (2004) states

that there are many empirical studies about feedback’s usage in the learning process. In the

literature, existing types of feedback are classified according to different parameters (Mory,

2004; Narciss & Huth, 2004). In distance course design, an instructor can choose appropriate

types of feedback for different students according to specific situations.

Vasilyeva et al. (2007) stated that feedback classification’s origins in studies of control

systems categorized feedback into positive and negative. They were also motivated by Mory’s

(2004) statement and classified feedback into no feedback, knowledge of response feedback,

knowledge of result or simple verification feedback, knowledge of correct response or correct

response feedback, answer until correct or try-again feedback and elaborated feedback (p.8)

according to how much and what kind of information it provides. Immediate feedback and

delayed feedback are classified according to the time when students received feedback, namely

getting feedback during learning or at the end of learning. (Vasilyeva et al., 2007). Furthermore,

they classified feedback into immediate, continuous, and summative by the steps in which

students are during learning. Grading information classified feedback into formative and

summative. In 2005, Hancock et al. pointed out that objects of learning caused appearance of

group and individual feedback.


23

Elaboration. According to Kulhavy and Stock (1989), feedback can be verification or

elaboration. When compared to verification, elaboration has more information. Gilman (1969)

pointed out that providing students with information about which answer is correct with the

reasons why it is correct is much more valuable than only telling the students whether it is right

or wrong. Feedback including both verification and elaboration can make learners aware of what

mistakes they made and restore the correct answers (Mason & Bruning, n.d). Several studies

(Merril; 1987; Mory, 1994; Park & Gittelman, 1992) have found that there is no difference for

giving elaboration feedback in computer-based learning and instruction. While a larger number

of researchers show that elaborated feedback enhances learning (Clariana, 1990; Gilman, 1969;

Morrison et al., 1995; Priderman & Klein, 1991, 1995; Roper, 1977).

Strategies. Providing feedback to students is important no matter whether it occurs in a

traditional class or in a distance class, although it is more difficult in distance learning.

Instructors often feel frustrated due to the ongoing multiple emails (Hismanoglun &

Hismanoglun, 2009). Since students have no chance to receive an explanation from instructors

about their assignment’s problems, the provision of feedback can allow students to build a

relationship with the instructor. Many factors, including students’ personal characteristics, online

course features, and available message delivery tools influence methods of providing feedback

(Hismanoglu & Hismanoglu, 2009). In this sense, according to the critical reviews of

Hismanoglu and Hismanoglu (2009) and the Illinois Online Network (2005), the only two types

of feedback are described, information feedback and acknowledge feedback. Three strategies

used for information feedback include the following: 1) setting up time lines for individuals to

self-grade and return assignments, 2) arranging office hours for on-campus students, and 3)

setting up time lines for discussion boards for distance learners. Technologies (e.g. PDF


24

scanners, Microsoft Word, Adobe Acrobat) also allow feedback, which offer strategies such as

inserting electronic comments. Student developed tests and quizzes also offer venues to get

feedback to students regarding their own learning. Comparatively, acknowledgement feedback is

directed mainly towards distance learners. Therefore, exemplars of strategies include showing

clear statements regarding the response policy in a syllabus, taking note of absent students, and

reminding them privately to protect their identity. Also for distance learners, feedback should

include establishing special assignment submission programs and notifying students about their

assignment submission (Illinois Online Network, 2005).

Others. In distance learning environments, not all students and professors have the skills

or computer equipment necessary to communicate (Hansen, Shinkle & Dupin, 1999). Even

though the skills and equipment were available, students and instructors may use different

computer programs or computer brand for communication, which means that students could not

read the professor’s material. These technical frustrations distracted from the learning process or

even blocked the learning process.

Learner characteristics. In distance education, delivery methods change the course from

instructor-centered to student-centered (Markel, 1999), so it is important to know the

characteristics of the distance learners in order for instructors to understand the potential barriers

when designing a distance course. Although it may not guarantee that students’ characteristics

are elements influencing their success, it may be a factor which hinders success (Galusha, 1997).

Therefore, research is categorized by prior knowledge, students’ attitude toward feedback,

learner control, response certitude and gender in this section.

Prior knowledge. People learn with the help of their prior knowledge and abilities. The

literature about feedback points out students’ prior knowledge can be considered as a key


25

characteristic (Hannafin, Hannafin, & Dalton, 1993). Actually, many researchers agree that “to

be effective, feedback needs to be compatible with students’ prior knowledge” (Hattie &

Timperley, 2007, p.104). Learners who have high prior knowledge spent less time on

understanding feedback given by instructors, even though they have no chance to communicate

with others at a specific time. They can use their previous information and rethink the problems.

In contrast, learners with low prior knowledge need additional support. Krause, Stark and Mandl

(2009) investigated the impact of feedback in relation to learners’ prior knowledge. College

students solve statistics problem in a computer-based learning environment. Data collected from

137 students who studied education and psychology indicated that prior knowledge has a

significant relationship with feedback. Students with low prior knowledge can get higher score in

posttest after learning from feedback.

Students’ attitude toward feedback. According to Pridemore and Klein’s (1991, 1995)

research, students’ attitude toward feedback is not necessarily related to learning outcomes.

However, feedback’s prominent function in distance education cannot be ignored even though

students’ attitude toward feedback cannot affect the importance of feedback. Students’ expressed

desire for more elaboration and more immediate feedback was found in studies by Pridemore and

Klein (1991, 1995) and Waddick (1994). Furthermore, in Waddick’s case study, students

expressed that constant and immediate feedback is much more useful than classroom instruction

in online learning. Comparing verification feedback with elaboration feedback, Pridemore and

Klein (1991) found that students desire additional information when receiving verification

feedback. In addition, research by Pridemore and Klein (1995) corroborated that it would be

better for students to get more detailed feedback.


26

Learner control. In distance education, learner control’s effect on feedback has not been

well studied. In Waddick’s case study (1994), learners were given the opportunity to access

feedback at their own discretion in computer-based instruction. Without statistical data, the

author only described positive views from the students. From the result of Pridemore and Klein’s

(1991) study, students who asked for feedback and who were given feedback exhibit the same

behavior and learning ability. Schimmel (1988) recommends that learners who have prior

knowledge and ability of self-learning should have a chance to choose what kind of feedback

they want to receive.

Response certitude. Students’ self-confidence about their performance of answering

questions is one variable of affecting feedback in distance education, which can be named as

response certitude. This term could also be referred to as response certainty, which is the

estimate of the learner’s basic feeling of how much they understand about a particular topic

according to their own prior knowledge (Kulhavy & Stock, 1989). Response certitude is

significant which demonstrates that students who answer questions correctly according to

feedback do so because they either understand it or they just guess. On the other hand, an

incorrect answer may result from different kinds of variables, from careless error to lack of

understanding.

Mory (1994) examined response certitude in distance education from earlier studies

(Kulhavy, 1977; Kulhavy & Stock, 1989; Kulhavy, Yelovich & Dyer, 1976) and found there are

difference in how long students spend analyzing and learning from feedback. He also found that

students with low certitude responses spent totally longer time in studying feedback than

students with high certitude responses.


27

Gender. Gender is also a variable which influences feedback in distance learning

environments. Hodes (1985) performed research on students who received either corrective or

non-corrective feedback, by collecting data from subject sorted by gender. Study results show

that both boys and girls received same non-corrective feedback, but boys’ grades are much

higher than girls’. Researchers could perform further research regarding gender in computer-

based feedback in the future.

Role of the instructor. Distance learning instructors instruct students in their learning

and offer assistance according to the needs of individuals and groups – they are not just a

communicator (Sherry, 1996). The responsibility of the instructor includes providing course

content and making sure the students understand the content (Willis, 2002). Instructors have

been required to pay much more attention to existing methods of providing students with

corrective feedback in distance learning environments. Exploration of teacher feedback practices

supports the notion that teachers should study the factors influencing the choice of tools and

strategies used to deliver feedback. Smaldino (2003) pointed out that teaching in distance

learning environment eliminates most of the visual cues. The pattern of students-teacher

interaction provided in a traditional classroom can no longer be used by distance learning

instructors. Unlike the traditional face-to-face interaction, instructors in the distance learning

environment lack the body language that is used in the communication process. In a distance

learning environment instructors do not have eye contact with students to verify that students are

engaged in the class and that students understand the course material (Smaldino, 2003).

Therefore, feedback has been considered as a main element to affect distance learning

facilitation. Providing prompt feedback to students is critical, especially for distance learners.


28

Instructor feedback in a distance learning environment is more like a guiding process, which

requires instructors to provide students with consistent feedback.

Technologies and Media. Technologies offer various media to deliver feedback.

Moreover, the wide usage of the internet and related technologies have created a platform for

teachers to rethink the way they deliver their feedback to students. Commonly and recently used

media are listed below.

Feedback through email. In distance education, students can receive feedback from

instructors through email. Feedback could be well used as long as students understand its

fundamental functions. It is indisputable that email is a new medium for information delivery

(Yu & Yu, 2002). For example, they found “empirical evidence supporting the usefulness of

email as a promising aid to promote student cognitive growth pertaining to computer knowledge

and skills” (p.123). Tao and Boulware (2002) found that students could be motivated, promoted

by email since it provides learning opportunities for students. Smith, Whiteley and Smith (1999)

defined email is a “viable alternative means of course delivery” (p.24).

Feedback through blog. Usage of blogs has been extended significantly, providing a

useful tool for collaboration, self-reflection and peer feedback (Dippold, 2009). Dippold

examined whether blogs can improve peer feedback among students in modern language classes.

Her qualitative findings suggested that BLOGS are useful in receiving feedback from both

faculty and peers. Kitchakarn (2013) designed a pretest posttest study. She sent a survey to 34

students who enrolled in a course named English for Expressing Ideas to express their opinions

about peer feedback. Besides the survey, students were also invited to take two writing tests, and

post a text to share their experience of using a blog with others. The result of the study revealed

that students’ writing scores on the pretest and posttest were significantly different, which means


29

that peer feedback activity through blogs had a significant role in improving students’ writing

skill.

Feedback through ePortfolio. The use of portfolio-based assessment in higher education

plays a valuable role in implementing feedback strategies (Lambert & Corrin, 2007). Lambert

and Corrin (2007) and Tang, Lai, Arthur, and Leung (1999) both state that ePortfolio feedback

provides student learning opportunities to develop students’ capabilities of reflecting, self-

discovery, critical thinking and document usage. However, they also pointed out there are

limitations to ePortfolio feedback. For example, in large class size, this approach is time-

consuming to assess.

Feedback through Facebook. Facebook is the most popular social networking service.

Recently, using Facebook to provide feedback becomes a popular research direction. McCarthy

(2010) explored the use of Facebook in a blended architecture program at the University of

Adelaide, and found that it provided important and rewarding feedback for students, especially

because Facebook provided a social connectedness for students to connect with other students,

in-particular international students from China and Malaysia. Charlton, Devlin and Drummond

(2009) reported another Facebook study of engineering students from Newcastle and Durham

University, where Facebook was used as a medium for student work, submission of assignments

and communicate with other peers. They developed a platform named “CommonGround” on

Facebook, which make students engaged in this area. The outcome of this study showed that

Facebook provided positive effects in communication, collaboration and feedback.

All these findings indicated that feedback is not a simple concept. In order to make

feedback effective in distance education, instructor needs to consider many variables. This

analysis could offer them some guidance.


30

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter explained the content analysis methodology selected for this research

project. Content analysis was defined as “a research method that uses a set of procedures to make

valid inferences from text” (Weber, 1990, p.9). The references were about the message sender,

the message, and/or message receiver. Then in 2004, Krippendorff defined content analysis as a

“research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from texts (or any other

meaningful matter) to the contexts of their use” (p.18). Further, he said that it was intended to

provide a deeper understanding of a phenomenon to support the inferences. Generally speaking,

images and symbols may be defined as text; however, according to the purpose of this study,

only written words were considered. Neuendorf (2002) indicated that content analysis

methodology traces back to social and behavioral sciences and follows scientific research.

This research project is mainly a descriptive analysis, describing articles with the terms

feedback, feedback roles, feedback types, feedback functions, media and technologies to deliver

feedback. Classifying, coding and analyzing the data were operational phases for this study

(Babbie, 2007). Key words and high-frequency topics from the targeted articles were recorded.

Sample

The purpose of the study was to ascertain what is being written about feedback in

distance education, since the importance of feedback in distance education is indispurable. The

sample for this content analysis was articles selected from issues found in Distance Education

journal which focus on feedback. Articles, which included feedback content and published from

1980 to 2013, were used. The researchers utilized the following terms as guidance to filter

appropriate articles about feedback: feedback, feedback roles, feedback types, feedback


31

functions, media and technologies to deliver feedback. Book reviews, introductions,

commentaries and responses, and forwards were not included in this study.

Distance Education is the official journal of the Open and Distance Learning Association

of Australia Inc. (ODLAA). ODLAA is a professional association for teachers, developers,

researchers, consultants and administrators from Australia and overseas involved in open and

distance learning. Distance Education is the journal of ODLAA Inc., which is a leading journal

in the field of open and distance learning. It is edited by associate professor Som Naidu and

published by Taylor & Francis.

Furthermore, Distance Education is a peer-reviewed journal. It publishes research and

scholarly material in the fields of distance, open and flexible education. It was one of the first

journals published which focused exclusively on this area of educational practice, and it remains

a primary source of original and scholarly work in the field for practitioners, teachers and

students.

Data Collection

In order to collect articles to do content analysis, the researcher searched all issues from

the Distance Education journal published from 1980 to 2013 from Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University library. This content analysis used data from articles related to feedback.

However, some standards also needed to be applied to assist selecting articles. Articles not

related to feedback, not written in English, and not peer-reviewed were excluded from the

content analysis (Manganello & Blake, 2010). When reading each article, general question

guided reading and analyzing.

Articles provided from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University library are in

digital version. The researcher opened each article shown as PDF form and typed in the word


32

feedback in order to establish if the word was present in the article. If so, it was read and

analyzed.

Categories for Coding

Content analysis is a kind of research methodology which is used to think about the real

content and themes. In this study, the analysis of feedback was used to explain the popularity and

the importance of feedback in distance education as reflected in Distance Education: An

International Journal. In order to best observe the content, not only was manifest content

analyzed, but latent content was analyzed as well. Potter and Levine-Donnerstein (1999)

mentioned that manifest content is easy to observe, for instance written words or phrases in a

text. The researcher scanned each issues of the Distance Education: An International Journal for

the content of terms of written words related to feedback. Next, the selected articles that met the

requirements were read and evaluated by the researcher. Latent content helped researchers gain a

deeper understanding of the text (Babbie, 2007). Through reading the articles, the researcher

understood the underlying meaning of the content and categorized the issues according to key

words and phrases.

Coding is “the process of transforming raw data into a standardized form” (Babbie, 2007,

p.325). To avoid the bias of the researcher, Neuendorf (2002) emphasized that the coding themes

should be determined before observation begins. The Coding Form (Appendix A) was used to

support the objective observation (Neuendorf, 2002). The Coding Form “provides spaces

appropriate for recording the codes for all variables measured” and it “should stand alone as a

protocol for content analysis messages” (Neuendorf, 2002, p.132). The articles were read and

analyzed in the order in which they were published, which made the analysis process much more

clear and organized. The main coding themes were roles, sources, functions, technology and


33

challenges. A category of “Other” was included in this research, in case some articles meeting

the selected criteria were not suitable to other themes. The coding form included: name of the

article, year of the article publication, predetermined coding categories, and emergent themes

and topics.

Treatment of Data

The total articles that met the requirement were recorded to assist the researcher in seeing

and understanding the frequency and percentage of publications related to feedback. The

researcher also counted key words and phrases to note the frequency of them and record the

popular terminology. The major part of this research, content themes, presented qualitatively. A

Coding Form (Appendix A) guided the content analysis procedure; Appendix B listed the articles

from Distance Education: An International Journal, which met the criteria of this research

project.

Two independent coders read and analyzed the articles with the help of the Coding Form.

The journal articles were repeatedly and thoroughly read and analyzed. These activities were

meant to increase the validity of the coding as well.

Social Work Ethics

Other methods of collecting data such as interview, questionnaires, or surveys were not

required in this analysis. Therefore, there is no personal information from participants included.

Hence, there are no concerns with regards to confidentiality, anonymity, or ethical rights of

human subjects as a result of this content analysis. Therefore, because no human subjects were

used in this research, this study does not need to gain approval from the Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University Institutional Review Board.


34

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion

Results

Descriptive analyses were utilized for the purpose of ascertaining what has been written

about feedback in Distance Education: An International Journal from 1980 to 2013 that

included content related to feedback, feedback roles, feedback functions, technology and media

to deliver feedback. This chapter will discuss the results of this study in two formats: one is

providing the manifest content through quantitative analysis, and the other is providing the latent

content through qualitative analysis.

Quantitative content analysis. The manifest content, which is easy to codify and observe,

is shown quantitatively. The number of articles from each year was recorded to provide a basic

idea of percentages and frequencies of the occurrence of feedback articles within the thirty-four

year time period (see Table 2). The total number of articles in the Distance Education journal

from 1980 to 2013 was 620, which excluded book review, introductions, commentaries and

responses, and forwards. In these 620 articles, 358 (58%) of them included the term feedback in

its content. Table 2 also expressed the percentage of each year’s occurrence of feedback articles.

Table 2

Number of Feedback Articles Published from 1980-2013 in Distance Education: An

International Journal

Year (Volume)

Total Number of

Articles

Total Number of

Feedback Articles Percentages

1980 (Volume 1) 17 4 23.5%

1981 (Volume 2) 18 7 38.9%

1982 (Volume 3) 18 6 33.3%


35

1983 (Volume 4) 16 5 31.3%

1984 (Volume 5) 21 11 52.4%

1985 (Volume 6) 17 9 52.9%

1986 (Volume 7) 19 8 42.1%

1987 (Volume 8) 18 8 44.4%

1988 (Volume 9) 21 4 19.0%

1989 (Volume 10) 19 9 47.3%

1990 (Volume 11) 16 6 37.5%

1991 (Volume 12) 18 7 38.9%

1992 (Volume 13) 19 7 36.8%

1993 (Volume 14) 21 17 80.9%

1994 (Volume 15) 17 9 52.9%

1995 (Volume 16) 17 5 29.4%

1996 (Volume 17) 20 9 45.0%

1997 (Volume 18) 20 15 75.0%

1998 (Volume 19) 18 14 77.7%

1999 (Volume 20) 17 9 52.9%

2000 (Volume 21) 20 13 65.0%

2001 (Volume 22) 17 13 76.4%

2002 (Volume 23) 14 13 92.8%

2003 (Volume 24) 13 8 61.5%

2004 (Volume 25) 13 11 84.6%

2005 (Volume 26) 20 12 60.0%


36

2006 (Volume 27) 21 16 76.2%

2007 (Volume 28) 19 13 68.4%

2008 (Volume 29) 21 16 76.1%

2009 (Volume 30) 19 17 89.4%

2010 (Volume 31) 16 15 93.7%

2011 (Volume 32) 20 14 70.0%

2012 (Volume 33) 20 12 60.0%

2013 (Volume 34) 20 16 80.0%

Total 620 358 58%

The number of articles in the Distance Education journal including the term feedback is

displayed in table 2. There is no doubt that feedback is an inextricable part of distance education.

However, not all these articles were concentrated on the study of feedback. The researcher read

all of the 358 articles that included the term feedback. One hundred and one of these articles

simply mentioned feedback once or twice to indicate that feedback was one of the important

elements in distance learning, or feedback played a vital role in instructional design for distance

learning. Two hundred and twenty three of the articles in this journal involved studies focused on

answering the questions of how the feedback was provided, the challenges when it was provided,

and what kind of technology or media were used to deliver feedback. The rest of the articles

were related to students’ characteristics or the comparison of feedback in distance education

versus conventional education.

A scatter diagram displays the general trends of research on feedback in distance learning

(see Figure 1). From Figure 1, even though the research about feedback did not continuously

rise, the general trends of authors’ attention to feedback research in distance learning resulted in


37

a steady, upward climb. Even to the extent that 93.7% of the articles included the term feedback

in 2010.

Figure 1

Qualitative content analysis. The general research question was kept in the researcher’s

mind, “What has been written about feedback in distance education in Distance Education: An

International Journal”, when reading and analyzing each article. Predetermined categories of

roles, sources, functions, technology and challenges instructed the researcher to read and code

articles’ content, which included the term feedback.

The researcher and the independent coder had a meeting before they read and coded the

materials separately to make sure the independent coder clearly understood the purpose of the

study, research questions, and methods of data collection. Once the researcher and the

independent coder analyzed the data, another meeting was conducted to discuss the coding

results. The process of coding began with the researcher finding related articles through typing

the term feedback in each digital version of the articles from each issue year by year. Three

hundred and fifty eight articles were picked up. The researcher read each articles, recorded the


38

important information and decided what topic each article belongs to. At last, each article was

put into the corresponding categories based on the topics (see Appendix C).

In Appendix C, it can be seen that some topics did not belong to the predetermined

categories mentioned in methodology chapter. In those cases researcher put them into an “other”

category and divided them into feedback types, articles that only mention feedback, importance

of feedback, students’ characteristic and etc. The percentage of topics appearing in the journal

listed from high to low below:

l Sources: where students got feedback and students provide feedback (34%)

l Articles only mention feedback (18%)

l Types of feedback (17.3%)

l Technologies and media: way to deliver feedback (15%)

l Importance of feedback (10%)

l Challenges: students meet problem and quit or drop out because of feedback (8%)

l Functions: feedback to interact, motivate, correct (3%)

l Other: students’ characteristics, comparison of feedback in DE and CE, roles (1.6%)

Figure 2 was provided by the researcher to show why different topics belonged to their

corresponding categories. In addition to all this information, table 3 identified number of articles

covered in six categories by year published in the journal from 1980 to 2013.


39

Reinforcement

Feedback role Roles

Feedback from tutors/teachers/instructors

Feedback from students/peers/classmates

Feedback from computers

Feedback from log date

Sources

Interaction

Motivation

Correction

Functions

Different technologies/software/social network

and etc. used to deliver feedback

Technologies and Media

Quality problem

Cultural problem

Difficulty/Obstacle

Drop out problem

Challenges

Types of feedback

Method to deliver feedback

Only mention feedback

Importance of (immediate) feedback

Students’ characteristics

Comparison of feedback in DE and CE

Other

Figure 2


40

Table 3

Number of Articles Covered in Six Categories by Year Published in the Journal from 1980 to

2013

Year Number of Articles in Six Categories

Roles Sources Functions Technology Challenges Other

1980 0 0 0 0 0 3

1981 1 4 0 0 1 1

1982 0 3 0 1 0 3

1983 0 0 1 1 0 3

1984 0 0 0 2 3 6

1985 0 2 0 2 2 6

1986 0 1 0 2 1 5

1987 0 2 0 3 1 1

1988 0 0 0 1 1 2

1989 0 4 0 2 1 5

1990 0 4 0 0 0 2

1991 0 1 0 0 3 4

1992 0 1 0 3 0 4

1993 0 4 1 2 1 11

1994 0 3 0 1 1 6

1995 0 1 1 1 0 2

1996 0 3 0 5 0 3

1997 0 6 0 2 0 8


41

1998 0 4 1 5 0 6

1999 0 4 1 1 0 4

2000 0 6 2 1 0 5

2001 0 3 1 1 1 8

2002 0 9 0 0 1 3

2003 0 3 1 2 0 2

2004 0 3 1 3 1 5

2005 1 7 1 1 2 1

2006 0 7 0 5 0 5

2007 0 4 0 2 1 8

2008 0 4 0 2 0 11

2009 0 8 0 0 0 11

2010 0 9 0 2 2 4

2011 0 4 1 0 2 9

2012 0 4 0 1 2 6

2013 0 6 1 3 3 4

Through three times of completing the coding process by the researcher and the

independent coder, the researcher decided to use some specific themes name to describe the

results. Themes such as feedback types, feedback provider, ways to deliver feedback, and

feedback quality were used in this analysis.

Feedback types. Feedback helps students learn more information, since it tells students

what to revise and rethink after they receive comments and corrections about their work.


42

Feedback can be different depending on the content and time of presentation (Vasilyeva et al.,

2007). The reason for investigating feedback types in distance education is that instructors could

choose appropriate types of feedback for different students according to their situations. Hyland

(2001) indicated that different types of feedback could meet students’ real needs and learning

contexts. There were many researchers who classified feedback into positive and negative, no

feedback, knowledge of response feedback, knowledge of result or simple verification feedback,

knowledge of correct response or correct response feedback, immediate and delayed, and

formative and summative.

Among all of these types of feedback, immediacy of feedback is the most popular factor

that many researchers emphasized as important. Sewart (1980) pointed out that the difference

between distance learning and conventional learning was that swift feedback was almost entirely

unavailable in distance learning. Coldeway and Spencer (1982) did a research study at Athabasca

University using Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction as a basic paradigm for distance

education. The results of the study suggested we should not underestimate the importance of

immediate feedback, because “it is quite possible that the delivery/management system which is

necessary to provide students with immediate feedback was actually what caused the differential

completion rates” (p.60). Students expressed their belief that immediate feedback enabled them

to complete the course more quickly than they expected (Andrews & Strain, 1985). As late as

2011, there were still some researchers who reported that students would like to receive

immediate feedback on their practice exercises or work to obtain effective learning.

External feedback and internal feedback were studied and pointed out by Furnborough and

Truman (2009). External feedback refers to “the comments provided by tutors on students’

assignments” and internal feedback “is generated when students interpret, construct, and


43

internalize external feedback” (p.401). Self-questioning techniques were good methods for

students to provide their own feedback and evaluate their learning. From the conclusion of Nicol

and Milligan’s (2006) research, external and internal feedback could not be used separately; they

are interrelated. This simply means that external feedback could not function effectively unless it

stimulated internal feedback successfully.

Assignment feedback was discussed by Roberts (1996) and Furnborough and Truman

(2009). It was widely used by instructors to tell students how they performed on the assignments

they submitted. However, Roberts (1996) stated that assignment feedback was not often given

much attention to as a skill in distance learning. To date, the Open University had hardly

considered students actual needs in assignment feedback. This lack of consideration, it must be

added, caused many problems, such as students’ confusion about what constitutes effective

feedback, differing feedback needs, and their preference for the feedback received on tutor-

marked assignments or computer-marked assignment. Furnborough and Truman (2009)

concluded in their research that assignment feedback is seen as “a means of supporting students

and providing individualized tuition, but it can only do so if students understand its purpose and

are aware of its potential” (p.413).

In 2013, some new types of feedback were presented and studied. Guasch, Espasa, Alvarez

and Kirschner stated that Alvarez et al’s (2011) study identified four types of feedback:

corrective feedback, epistemic feedback, suggestive feedback, and epistemic + suggestive

feedback. Corrective feedback has already been mentioned before. It is the first major type of

feedback, as Mory (1992) indicated that researchers considered feedback primarily as serving to

correct. Corrective feedback refers to “comments about the assignment requirements and the

adequacy of the content” (p.326). Epistemic feedback refers to “requests for explanations and/or


44

clarifications in a critical way” (p.326). Suggestive feedback includes “advice on how to proceed

or progress and invites exploration, expansion, or improvement of an idea” (p.326). Epistemic +

suggestive feedback is “the combination of epistemic feedback and suggestive feedback”

(p.326). Guasch et al (2013) did research on these types of feedback and discovered that students

who received epistemic or epistemic + suggestive feedback produced a higher quality of writing

than students who received either corrective feedback or, more importantly, suggestive feedback.

Furthermore, students’ interaction was promoted by epistemic feedback or epistemic +

suggestive feedback to a higher level.

In addition, there are also some types of feedback that were only mentioned in researchers’

articles but researchers did not provided detailed information about them, like evaluative

feedback, explanatory feedback, constructive feedback, diagnostic feedback, periodic feedback,

etc.

Feedback provider. Studies about feedback led to the research on tutors who were

considered as a crucial factor in successful learning (White, 2005). They were also called

instructors and teachers in the articles of this journal. In distance learning environments, the role

of tutors changed from providing learning content to providing feedback (Sims, 2003). They

were the link between the students and learning materials. They help students make progress

through a course, and provide immediate feedback on their performance (Coldeway & Spencer,

1982). To date, the tutor’s role is to “comment on students’ written work, grade assignments,

help students to understand the course materials, answer students’ queries about the teaching

system, help students to plan their work better, organize self-help groups, conduct face-to-face

tutorials, lectures, supervise project work, provide the institution with feedback on course

materials and student problems” (Rumble, 1981).


45

Among the many responsibilities of the tutor’s, the tutor’s feedback was considered more

important than any other role. Feedback plays an important part in distance learning. There is a

phenomenon that student dropout rate in distance learning was a little bit higher than face-to-face

class. Feedback given from tutor to students and a quick turnaround time was considered as the

factors for decreasing the dropout rate on a course study (Mann, 1998). Actually, tutor feedback

could make students feel confident, motivate their learning enthusiasm, correct students mistakes

that are made during learning, evaluate their own learning progress.

Tutors not only provided feedback to students, they also received feedback from students

about problems with course materials. In distance learning, regular and effective feedback to a

teacher could help the teacher rethink their instructional design materials and improve their

performance and teaching skill. Cheung (1998) mentioned in his article that students gave tutor

or instructional designer diagnostic feedback in order to improve course quality, such as course

objectives, course delivery methods.

Students not only received feedback from tutors, but also received feedback from peers.

Students regarded both receiving and providing feedback as a perfect enhancement to their

learning because they could see the strengths and weakness of other people through the

providing of feedback and see their own strengths and weaknesses through receiving feedback

(Lou, 2004). A study from North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS) showed that students

desired “peer interaction, quick responses to their questions, and rapid feedback on submitted

assignment” (Olive, Osborne & Brady, 2009, p.39). For international students, feedback and

comments from their peers was useful as well (Samarawickrema, 2005).

“I think it’s good to have the chance to communicate with other students

and your lecturer and teacher and the like because in school you need the


46

chance to ask questions in an informal way. Especially if you are from another

culture.” (p.61)

However, another study expressed that students who received epistemic or epistemic +

suggestive feedback preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback. They thought teacher feedback

was much more reliable (Guasch et al., 2013).

Computer-generated feedback appeared in the articles of this journal. Roberts (1996)

called it computer-marked assignments, which means that the feedback was provided by

computer systems. In one study, researchers found that the majority students do not care whether

the feedback is given from either the computer or the tutor. At the same time, two students

expressed that they preferred feedback given from the computer since it was quick and

comprehensive. Kanuka and Nocente (2003) responded positively to the function of computer-

generated feedback on the assessment Web pages. In contrast, the Open University in the UK

(UKOU) considered tutor-marked assignment as the primary method to communicate with

students and provide feedback to students in their learning process.

Ways to deliver feedback. In distance learning, teachers and students are separated. Tutors

need to provide learning materials to students, and provide feedback to students after students

have submitted their assignment in order to let students realize that they are not alone.

The earliest methods used to fulfilled two-way communication in distance education were

the printed document and the postal system, which could date back to 250 years ago (Garrison,

1985). Of course, this kind of method has a lot of shortcomings. For example, students who live

in rural areas or areas with undeveloped postal system spend weeks or months to receive

feedback from tutors. Students may lose patience in such situation and give up continuing their

studies.


47

An additional consideration is the electronic transmissions involved in distance education.

Coldeway and Spencer (1982) performed research to prove that it is possible to use Keller’s

Personalized System of Instruction (PSI) as a basic paradigm for distance learning. In this study,

the question was answered of how to provide the students with immediate feedback. It

mentioned that students were given feedback through PSI-Mail or PSI-Phone. The results of the

study indicated that the telephone was successfully implemented in a PSI model to give

immediate feedback to students. According to the research, mail and phone were used as the

media to deliver tutor and student interaction and feedback. Actually, several researchers had

also pointed out that mail and phone could be used as methods to deliver feedback. For instance,

using the telephone was the main method to interact in distance learning in Sweden (Wille’n,

1983). Then print text, audiocassettes, fax, CD-ROM and video tapes were gradually used as

methods to establish contact between teachers and students. In the 1990s, computers gradually

became popular and were used for educational purposes, since this new type of technology

provided better quality feedback. Holt and Thompson (2006) stated that “new technology

developments are more quickly and strongly moved into the worlds of teaching and learning, and

more continuously reviewed and revised in response to teacher and student feedback” (p.214).

Science courses have been greatly influenced by the development of computer technology

(Shott, 1985). Examples were “computer simulations for video tapes, computer tutorials (passive

or interactive), self-assessment programs, continuous assessment with feedback” (p.127). Halabi,

Tuovinen and Smyrnios (2000) conducted research on providing students feedback via a

computer-based learning model. During the research, a number of students expressed their

positive attitudes about computer-based learning and indicated that material provided by

computer was useful, they can understand instructor easily, and the feedback was good.


48

“I am a novice to PCs, using one for the first time this year. I had no

problems with the CBL package and thoroughly enjoyed it. Instant

feedback is one of its greatest advantages – something we miss with

DE…Many thanks,” and, “The computer-based learning software and

the feedback were excellent. The feedback…added a personal touch”.

(p.174)

Email was used as a consequence of developing computer technology. Ten authors brought up

that instructors use email to provide immediate feedback to help students feel confidence in

distance learning.

With the wide usage of computers in distance learning, some software, which was easy to

use and could provide good feedback, was created by developers to support teaching and

learning. Second Life is one of them, which is an online virtual world. Childress and Braswell

(2006) constructed and used massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)

Second Life to improve communication and interaction in an online course. Second Life made

educators and their students feel that they were learning in a vivid digital world. It can also help

students think they are in a face-to-face class and overcome anxiety and upset. The conclusion of

this article was that Second Life showed a positive impact in distance education. In addition to

this, modern media like Twitter, Facebook, ePortfolios, on-line forum and chat tools were

suggested as methods to provide feedback as well.

Feedback quality. In distance education, feedback built a bridge between instructor and

students, students and students, students and learning environment. Hence, the importance of

feedback is hard to overlook. Feedback quality directly impacts the learning outcomes. However,


49

Andrews and Strain (1985) stated that a problem which it is hard to control is the tutors’

feedback quality and turn-around time of feedback given to students, since quality of feedback

varies among different tutors. For students, it would be better for them to get continuous,

objective and instructional feedback. Garrison (1985) cited Store and Armstrong’s (1981) study

and listed that “immediacy, regularity, explanation, conciseness and clarity” (p.234) are good

feedback standard.

In Roberts (1996) assignment feedback’s research, the question “what are the elements of

effective feedback” was answered. According to students’ response, he summarized that students

often pointed out three elements of good feedback:

1. Students prefer to receive an encouraging, supportive feedback from the tutor.

2. Feedback from tutor apparently demonstrated where students made mistakes in

their assignment.

3. Students would like to get feedback with an explanation of how and why they are

correct from the tutor’s comments or model answers when they chose the right answer.

Therefore, tutors should bear in mind several components when they provide feedback to

promote meaningful learning in distance education. Components (Sageder, 1988, p.239)

included:

1. evaluating comments on student’s achievement,

2. exemplary task solution,

3. diagnostic commentaries on student’s solution,

4. therapeutic hints at additional learning materials

Research on feedback was carried out many years ago. There were not too many practical

and meaningful definitions of feedback at early stages. Since then, more and more research about


50

feedback has been explored. But there are still many aspects needing to be researched in the

future because of the rapid development of learning environments and rapid development of

technology.

Many researchers have investigated the importance of immediate feedback in distance

learning. Students expressed the positive aspects of immediate feedback, which helps them to not

feel isolated and lonely. However, Kulhavy and Anderson (1962) pointed out a situation: the

delayed retention effect (DRE). After students submitted the wrong answer, delayed feedback

may let them forget this wrong answer, and the new correct answer could be more easily learned

and better remembered. Research about when to provide delayed feedback, in which situation

delayed feedback could be provided can be studied and discussed in the future.

Generally speaking, feedback was used to help students make progress in their distance

learning. Under certain circumstance, students received feedback that was formal; with a targeted

purpose to show the correctness of their assignments. Hence, Cropley and Nahl (1983) compared

face-to-face education and distance education and noted that learners’ age, self-efficacy,

capability and far-sightedness strongly influenced the effects of feedback. Research is mostly,

however, performed about tutors and the part they play in supporting students and deliver

feedback; tutor’s can provide feedback for students to rethink their material and improve their

performance. In the future, researchers could perform research from the student’s perspective,

such as considering students’ age, their receptivity and prior knowledge when designing

feedback.

Other than that, students’ characteristic also raise another problem: whether it is possible or

necessary to provide individual feedback. In Roberts (1996) research, some students expressed

that they thought all students needed the same kind of feedback, while a few students guessed


51

that individual feedback to different students is needed. The reasons included “the marks

attained, the degree of isolation of the student, level of confidence, previous knowledge and

motivation for doing the course unit” (p.104).

From many of the research articles, most people thought that the combination of tutor and

peer feedback would impact learning effectively. However, in Guasch et al. (2013) study,

students expressed that they prefer tutor feedback to peer feedback, since they regarded the tutor

feedback was much more reliable. But there was no evidence to say that peer feedback cannot

improve students’ learning independently.

Drop out problems in distance education happened from time to time. Institution and

students alike were all interested in this issue. But, it is difficult to find out the reasons why

students dropout. Some students thought it takes too much time to study (Ashby, 2004). Some

thought that distance courses are easier than conventional ones (Nash, 2005). There were also

some other reasons, such as lack of funding, lack of time, lack of patience, poor time

management, and poor instructions. In addition, Angelino et al. (2007) stated that lack of timely

feedback and feelings of isolation may have been reasons leading to students drop out. Roberts

(1984) did the research about ways of reducing early student drop out rates and he believed that

students quit because they do not receive much swift feedback and have no a peer group to

measure their own performance; they have difficulties in receiving quick and meaningful

feedback. Researchers could do some research to find out what kind of difficulties students have

in receiving quick and meaningful feedback in order to reduce drop out rates or avoid the

dropout problem if possible in the future.

However, feedback does not always improve learning, while it could also play the opposite

way, namely, decrease the learning procurement. McGill, Volet and Hobbs (1997) collected data


52

through a student survey and found the result that because in distance education, it is hard to get

face-to-face communication opportunities that provide immediate feedback for students, tutors

could not provide early and appropriate assistance when students really need it. Some students

far away from the instructors expressed that it was difficult for them to get in-depth feedback;

while some expressed that delayed feedback made them feel anxiety since they thought delayed

feedback may influence their learning process. For example, students registered for the wrong

courses, obtained wrong learning materials because they could not contact the school or

instructor to correct mistakes in time in distance learning (Nielsen, 1997). In sum, feedback is

not always positive.

Discussion

To answer the general research question of what has been written about feedback in

distance education in Distance Education: An International Journal, a content analysis was

performed. The term feedback and related phrases were used to find out the criteria articles, and

helped generate themes after analyzing the articles.

The importance of feedback in distance education has already been emphasized again and

again not only in this journal but also in many other journals related to distance learning.

Feedback encourages student learning. Moreover, some students considered feedback as

instructor presence. But through this entire journal, two hundred and sixty-two articles

concentrated only on feedback study even though researchers realized that feedback plays a vital

part in distance learning. The majority of the articles that had the term feedback even once or

twice made a contribution to categorizing the articles. Feedback types, feedback provider, ways

to deliver feedback, and feedback quality were mainly discussed. Only were these old topics that

appeared in literature review discussed and emphasized by researchers from this journal. There


53

were no new themes or interesting ideas that drew researchers attention when reading and coding

the articles.

Feedback’s functions are correcting students’ mistakes, improving students’ weaknesses,

encouraging students, motivating students, guiding learning processing, interacting with

students, enhancing learning environment, and evaluating their performance. Therefore,

feedback may be considered as the only tool to communicate, to interact, and to establish contact

between students and instructors, students and students, and students and learning environment.

Researchers suggested instructors providing consistent, timely, high-quality and thorough

feedback to students.

Distance education has existed for a long time. It helps students get information from

outside of the conventional learning, as it was called external study in the early 1980s in

Australia. Appearance of distance education makes some peoples’ dream come true. Some adults

have no chance to obtain higher education because of one reason or another. When they expected

to go back to school to continue their study, work and family issues held them back. But distance

education is not perfect. There are still many problem needed to be solved. From this content

analysis study, the research studies about feedback in distance learning were not constructive and

creative. Of course, it must be pointed out that the articles used in this content analysis were all

from one international journal, which is a limitation of this study.


54

Reference

Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2011). The value of feedback in improving collaborative

writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37,

387-400. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2010.510182

Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W. & Ander, T. (1971). Feedback procedures in programmed

instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 148-156.

Anderson, R. C., Kulhavy, R. W. & Ander, T. (1972). Conditions under which feedback

facilitates learning from programmed lessons. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63,

186-188.

Andrewartha, G. (1996). Improving the presentation of printed text for tertiary level distance

education: literature review and survey. Distance Education, 17(2), 387-411.

Andrews, J. & Strain, J. (1985). Computer-assisted distance education: off-line and on-line

American experiences. Distance Education, 6(2), 143-157.

Angelino, L. M., Williams, F. K., & Natvig, D. (2007). Strategies to engage online students and

reduce retention rates. Journal of Educators Online, 4(2), 1-14.

Ashby, A. (2004). Monitoring student retention in the Open University: Definition,

measurement, interpretation and action. Open Learning, 19(1), 65-77.

Azevedo, R., & Bernard, R. M. (1995). A meta-analysis of the effects of feedback in computer-

based instruction. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 111–127.

Babbie, E. (2007). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher

Education.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional

effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238.


55

Bardwell, R. (1981). Feedback: How does it function? Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 4-

9.

Barringer, C., & Gholson, B. (1979). Effects of type and combination of feedback upon

conceptual learning by children: Implications for in academic learning. Review of

Educational Research, 49(3), 459-478.

Bennett, S. (1979). A history of control engineering, 1800-1930. New York: Peregrinus for the

Institution of Electrical Engineers.

Black, A. (2005). The use of asynchronous discussion: Creating a text of talk. Retrieved October

3, 2005 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol5/iss1/languagearts/article1.cfm

Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human Characteristics and School Learning. New York, NY: McGraw-

Hill.

Brown, J. (2007). Feedback: the student perspective. Research in Post-Compulsory Education,

12(1), 33-51.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

Carlson, C. R. (1979). Feedback for learning. In Milton, O (ed.). On College Teaching ( pp. 125-

152). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Charlton, T., Devlin, M., & Drummond, S. (2009). Using Facebook to improve communication

in undergraduate software development teams. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 273-

292.


56

Cheung, D. (1998). Developing a student evaluation instrument for distance teaching. Distance

Education, 19(1), 23-42.

Childress, M. D., & Braswell, R. (2006). Using massively multiplayer online role-playing games

for online learning. Distance Education, 27(2), 187-196.

Clariana, R. B. (1990). A comparison of answer-until-correct feedback and knowledge-of-

correct-response feedback under two conditions of contextualization. Journal of

Computer-based Instruction, 17(4), 125-129.

Clariana, R. B., Ross, S. M., & Morrison, G. R. (1991). The effects of different feedback

strategies using computer-administered multiple-choice question as instruction.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(2), 5-17.

Cohen, V. B. (1985). A reexamination of feedback in computer-based instruction: Implications

for instructional design. Educational Technology, 25(1), 33-37.

Coldeway, D. & Spencer, R. E. (1982). Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction: the search

for a basic distance learning paradigm. Distance Education, 3(1), 51-71.

Cole, S., Coats, M., & Lentell, H. (1986). Towards good teaching by correspondence. Open

Learning, 1(1), 16-22.

Cropley, A. J., & Kahl, T. N. (1983). Distance education and distance learning: some

psychological considerations. Distance Education, 4(1), 27-39.

Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J. V.

Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 21-54).

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Dempsey, J. V., & Wager, S. U. (1988). A taxonomy for the timing of feedback in computer-

based instruction. Educational Technology, 28(10), 20-25.


57

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an

advanced German class. European Association for Computer Assisted Language

Learning, 21(1), 18-36.

Dron, J. (2007). Control and constraint in e-learning: Choosing when to choose. Hershey, PA:

Information Science Publishing.

Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional

technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Epstein, M. L., Lazarus, A. D., Calvano, T. B., Matthews, K. A., Hendel, R. A., Epstein, B. B., et

al. (2002). Immediate feedback assessment technique promotes learning and corrects

inaccurate first responses. The Psychological Record, 52, 187–201.

Furnborough, C. & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions

and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 30(3), 399-418.

Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning (4th Ed.). New York: CBS College.

Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the

online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic

performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor. International Journal on

ELearning, 7, 463-476. Retrieved from

http://jolt.merlot.org/vol4no3/oomenearly_0908.htm

Galusha, J. M. (1997). Barriers to learning in distance education. Retrieved from

http://www.infrastruction.com/articles.htm

Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovations in distance education.

Distance Education, 6(2), 235-241.


58

Gilman, D. A. (1969). Comparison of several feedback methods for correcting errors by

computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 60(6), 503-508.

Graham, C., Cagiltay, K., Craner, J., Lim, B. and Duffy, T. (2002). Teaching in a web based

distance learning environment: An evaluation summary based on four courses. Retrieved

October 18, 2002, from http://crlt.indiana.edu/publications/crlt00-13.pdf

Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, I. M., & Kischner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on

collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324-

338.

Halabi, A. K., Tuovinen, J. E., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2000). Using CBL to improve cognitive load

and reduce feedback redundancy in Accounting distance learning. Distance Education,

21(1), 162-182.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., & Dalton, D. W. (1993). Feedback and emerging instructional

technologies. In J. V. Demposey, G. C. Dales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback

(pp. 263–286). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Hansen, B., Shinkle, A., & Dupin, P. (1999, December). Feedback in distance education:

Broadening Electronic Communication Pathways. Journal of Extension, 37(6). Retrieved

from http://www.joe.org/joe/1999december/iw3.php

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to

achievement. London: Routledge.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research,

77(1), 81-112.

Hismanoglu, M., & Hismanoglu, S. (2009). Providing feedback on student work in distance

education in Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 10(4), 91-104.


59

Hodes, C. L. (1985). Relative effectiveness of corrective and noncorrective feedback in computer

assisted instruction on learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Technology

Systems, 13(4), 249-254.

Holding, D. H. (1965). Principles of training. New York: Oxford University.

Holmes, B. & Gardner, J. (2006). E-learning: Concepts and practice. London: Sage.

Holt, D. M., & Thompson, D. J. (1998). Managing information technology in open and distance

higher education. Distance Education, 19(2), 197-227.

Hoska, D. M. (1993). Motivating learners through CBI feedback: Developing a positive learner

perspective. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback

(pp.105-132). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Howard, D.C. (1987). Designing learner feedback in distance education. The American Journal

of Distance Education, 1(3), 24-40.

Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance language

learners. Open Learning, 16(3), 233-247.

Illinois Online Network. (2005). Strategies for providing feedback. Retrieved August 30, 2005,

from http://www.ion.uillinois.edu/resources/tutorials/pedagogy/feedback.asp

Ivanic, R., Clark, R., & Rimmershaw, R. (2000). What am I supposed to make of this? The

messages conveyed to students by tutors’ written comments. In M. R. Lea & B. Stierer

(Eds.), Student Writing in Higher Education (pp. 47-67). Suffolk: Open University Press.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991a). Context is everything. Educational Technology, 31(6), 33-34.

Jonassen, D. H. (1991b). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.


60

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback in technology-

based instruction. In J. V. Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and

feedback (pp.133-157). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.

Kanuka, H. & Nocente, N. (2003). Exploring the effects of personality type on perceived

satisfaction with web-based learning in continuing professional development. Distance

Education, 24(2), 227-244.

Kielty, L. S. (2004). Feedback in distance learning: Do student perceptions of corrective

feedback affect retention in distance learning? (Educational specialist’s thesis). Retrieved

from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/1114/

Kitchakarn, O. (2013). Peer feedback through blogs: an effective tool for improving students’

writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 152-164.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2001). Teaching Online: A Practical Guide. Boston, MA: Houghton-

Mifflin.

Koshy, K., Bonato, J., & Faasalaina, T. (1994). Chemistry through distance teaching – A South

Pacific experiment. Distance Education, 15(2), 291-299.

Kowitz, G. T., & Smith, J. C. (1985). The dynamics of successful feedback. Performance &

Instruction Journal, 4-6.

Krause, U.-M., Stark, R., & Mandl, H. (2009). The effects of cooperative learning and feedback

on e-learning in statistics. Learning and Instruction, 19, 158–170.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.003

Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2),

211–232.


61

Kulhavy, R. W., & Anderson, R. C. (1972). Delay-retention effect with multiple-choice tests.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(5), 505-512.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response

certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279-308.

Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context

and implications for practice. In J. Dempsey & G. Ales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and

feedback (pp. 3–20). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Kulhavy, R. W., Yekovich, F. R., & Dyer, J. W. (1976). Feedback and response confidence.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(5), 522-528.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. L. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of

Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.

Lambert, S., & Corrin, L. (2007). Moving towards a university wide implementation of an

ePortfolio tool. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(1), 1-16.

Lou, Y. (2004). Learning to solve complex problems through between-group collaboration in

project-based online course. Distance Education, 25(1), 49-66.

Lynch, M. M. (2002). The Online Educator: A Guide to Creating the Virtual Classroom.

NewYork: RoutledgeFalmer.

Manganello, J., & Blake, N. (2010). A study of quantitative content analysis of health

messages in U.S. media from 1985 to 2005. Health Communication, 25, 387-396.

Mann, C. C. (1998). Quality assurance in distance education: The surrey MA (TESOL)

experience. Distance Education, 19(1), 7-22.

Markel, M. (1999). Distance education and the myth of the new pedagogy. Journal of Business

& Technical Communication, 13, 208-222.


62

Mason, B. J., & Bruning, Roger. (n/a). Providing feedback in computer-based instruction: What

the research tell us. Retrieved from http://dwb.unl.edu/Edit/MB/MasonBruning.html

Mayr, Otto. (1989). Authority, liberty, & automatic machinery in early modern Europe. Johns

Hopkins University Press.

McCarthy, J. (2010). Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance

the first year experience. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 729-

740.

McCleary, I. D., & Eagan, M. W. (1989). Program design and evaluation: Two-way interactive

television. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 50-60.

McGill, T. J., Volet, S. E., & Hobbs, V. J. (1997). Studying computer programming externally:

Who succeeds? Distance Education, 18(2), 236-256.

McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for

educational communications and technology (pp. 355–395). New York: MacMillan

Library Reference.

Merril, J. (1987). Levels of questioning and forms of feedback: Instructional factors in

courseware design. Journal of Computer-based Instruction, 14(1), 18-22.

Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education. New York: Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus

corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Gopalakrishman, M., & Casey, J. (1995). The effects of feedback

and incentives on achievement in computer-based instruction. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 20, 32-50.


63

Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Implications for future

research. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 5-20.

Mory, E. H. (1994). Adaptive feedback in computer-based instruction: Effects of response

certitude on performance, feedback-study time, and efficiency. Journal of Educational

Computer Research, 11(3), 263-290.

Mory, E. H. (1996). Feedback research. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.) Handbook of research for

educational communications and technology. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research

for educational communications and technology (pp. 745–783). New York: MacMillan

Library Reference.

Moursund, D. (2007). Computer-assisted and distance learning. A College Student’s Guide to

Computer in Education (pp.49-56). Retrieved from http://iae-

pedia.org/College_Student%E2%80%99s_Guide_to_Computers_in_Education/Chapter_

5:_Computer-Assisted_and_Distance_Learning

Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia

learning. In H. M. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Ed.), Instructional design for

multimedia learning (pp. 181-195). Munster, NY: Waxmann.

Nash, R. D. (2005). Course completion rates among distance learners: Identifying possible

methods to improve retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(4).

Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/

Neuwndorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.


64

Nicol, D. J., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in

relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.),

Innovative assessment in higher education (pp.64-77). Abingdon: Routledge.

Nielsen, H. D. (1997). Quality assessment and quality assurance in distance teacher education.


O’Lawrence, H. (2006). The influence of distance learning on adult learners. Techniques, 81(5),

47-49.

Oliver, K., Osborne, J., & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary students’ expectations for

teachers in virtual school environments? Distance Education, 30(1), 23-45.

Ovando, M. N. (1991). Adjunct faculty teaching needs: meeting these needs through a faculty

development program. The International Journal of Educational Management, 5(3), 13-

17.

Park, O. & Gittelman, S. S. (1992). Selective use of animation and feedback in computer-based

instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 40(4), 27-38.

Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2006). Using photographic images as an interactive online teaching

strategy. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 229-240.

Phye, G. D., & Bender, T. (1989). Feedback complexity and practice: Response pattern analysis

in retention and transfer. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 97–110.

Phye, G. D., Gugliamella, J., & Sola, J. (1976). Effects of delayed retention on multiple-choice

test performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 26–36.

Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking validity and reliability in

content analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27,258-284.


65

Price, B. (1997). Defining quality feedback in distance learning. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

26, 154-160.

Pridemore, D. R. & Klein, J. D. (1991). Control of feedback in computer-assisted instruction.

Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(4), 27-32.

Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1995). Control of practice and level of feedback in computer-

based instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 444-450.

Pyke, J. G., & Sherlock, J.J. (2010). A closer look at instructor-student feedback online: A case

study analysis of the types and frequency. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,

6(1), 110-121.

Rieber, L. P. (1992). Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct

instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 93-106.

Roberts, D. (1984). Ways and means of reducing early student drop-out rates. Distance

Education, 5(1), 50-71.

Roberts, D. (1996). Feedback on assignments. Distance Education, 17(1), 95-116.

Roehler, L. R., & Cantlon, D. L. (1997). Scaffolding: A powerful tool in social constructivist

classroom. In K. Hogan & M. Pressley (Eds.), Scaffolding Student Learning:

Instructional Approach and Issues (pp.6-42). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.

Roper, W. R. (1977). Feedback in computer-assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and

Educational Technology, 14, 43-49.

Rumble, G. (1981). Evaluating autonomous multi-media distance learning systems: a practical

approach. Distance Education, 2(1), 64-90.


66

Rumelhart, D. & Norman, D. (1978). Accretion, tuning and restructuring: Three modes of

learning. In. J.W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic Factors in Cognition. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Ryan, M., Hodson-Carlton, K. & Ali, N. (2005). A model for faculty teaching online:

Confirmation of a dimensional matrix. Journal of Nursing Education, 44(8), 357-365.

Sageder, J. (1988). Tests as means for promotion of learning from distance teaching. Distance

Education, 9(2), 234-249.

Sales, G. C. (1993). Adapted and adaptive feedback in technology-based instruction. In J. V.

Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 159-175).

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Samarawickrema, R. G. (2005). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning: Some

preliminary findings. Distance Education, 26(1), 49-66.

Schimmel, B. J. (1988). Providing meaningful feedback in courseware. In D. H. Jonassen (Eds.),

Instructional Design for Microcomputer courseware, (pp. 183-196). Hillsdale, HJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Schutz, P. A. & Weinstein, C. E. (1990). Using test feedback to facilitate the learning process.

Innovation Abstracts NISOD, 12(6), 1-2.

Schwartz, F., & White, K. (2000). Making sense of it all: Giving and getting online course

feedback. In K. W. White & B. H. Weight (Eds.), The online teaching guide: A handbook

of attitudes, strategies, and techniques for the virtual classroom (pp. 57–72). Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.


67

Sewart, D. (1980). Creating an information base for an individualized support system in distance

education. Distance Education, 1(2), 171-187.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). The mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical

Journal, 27, 379-42.

Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational

Telecommunications, 1(4), 337-365.

Shotsberger, P. G. (1996). Instructional uses of the World Wide Web: exemplars and

precautions. Educational Technology, 36(2), 47-50.

Shott, M. (1985). Teaching Physics at a distance. Distance Education, 6(1), 102-127.

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-

189.

Sim, R. (2003). Interactivity and feedback as determinants of engagement and meaning in e-

learning environment. In S. Naidu (Ed.), Learning & teaching with technology:

Principles and practice. London: Kogan Page.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2006). Teaching and learning at a

distance: Foundations of distance education (3rd Ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Simpson, O. (2002). Supporting students in online, open and distance learning. (2th Ed.).

London: Kogan Page.

Smaldino, S. (2003). Instructional design for distance education. TechTrends, 43(5), 9-13.

Stare, R., & Armstrong, J. (1981). Personalizing feedback between teacher and student in the

context of a particular model of distance teaching. British Journal of Educational

Technology, 12(2), 140-157.

Steinberg, E. R. (1984). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.


68

Swan, K. (2002). Building Learning Communities in Online Courses: The importance of

interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23-49.

Tang, C., Lai, P., Arthur, D., & Leung, S. (1999). How do students prepare for traditional and

portfolio assessment in a problem-based learning curriculum? Themes and Variation in

PBL, 1, 206-217.

Tao, L., & Boulware, B. (2002). Issues in technology email: Instructional potentials and learning

opportunities. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18, 285-288.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language (1976). Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company.

Theory into Practice. (2003). Theories. Tip Database. Retrieved June 18, 2003, from

http://tip.psychology.org/theories.html

Thorpe, M. (2000). Encouraging students to reflect as part of the assignment process. Active

Learning in Higher Education, 1(1), 79-92.

Tomei, L. (2003). Learning theories – A primer exercise. University of Southern California.

Retrieved February 23, 2003, from http://www.duq.edu/~tomei/ed711psy/h_rogers.htm

Tovani, Cris. (2012). Feedback is a two-way street. Feedback for Learning, 70(1), 48-51.

Vasilyeva, E., Puuronen, S., Pechenizkiy, M., & Rasanen, P. (2007). Feedback adaptation in

web-based learning systems. Int. J. Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long

Learning, 17(5), 337-357.

Waddick, J. (1994). Case study: The creation of a computer learning environment as an

alternative to traditional lecturing methods in chemistry. Educational and Training

Technology International, 31(2), 98-103.


69

Wager, W., & Wager, S. (1985). Presenting questions, processing responses, and providing

feedback in CAI. Journal of Instructional Development, 8(4), 2-8.

Wagner, E. D. (1994). In support of a functional definition of interaction. American Journal of


Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American language, 4th ed., (2001). Foster City, CA:

IDG Books Worldwide.

White, C. (2005). Contribution of distance education to the development of individual learners.


Wille’n, B. (1983). Distance education in Swedish universities. Distance Education, 4(2), 211-

222.

Willis, B. (2002). Distance education at a glance. University of Idaho. Retrieved October 15,

2002, from http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/dist9.htm

Yu, F. Y., & Yu. H. J. (2002). Incorporating email into the learning process: Its impact on

student academic achievement and attitudes. Computer and Education, 38, 117-126.


70

Appendix A

Name of Article: __________________________________________________________________

Year of the Article Publication: ____________________________________________

Categories for Coding:

Roles __________ Sources __________

Function __________ Technology __________

Challenge __________ Other ____________

Emergent Themes and Topics:

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________


71

Appendix B

Articles for Qualitative Analysis

Akbulut, Y., Kuzu, A., Latchem, C., & Odabasi, F. (2007). Change readiness among teaching

staff at Anadolu University, Turkey. Distance Education, 28(3), 335-350.

Alexander, J. W., Polyakova-Norwood, V., Johnston, L. W., Christensen, P., & Loquist, R. S.

(2003). Collaborative development and evaluation of an online nursing course. Distance

Education, 24(1), 41-56.

Alvino, S., Asensio-Perez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hernandez-Leo, D. (2009). Supporting the

reuse of effective CSCL learning designs through social structure representations.


Amarsaikhan, D., Lkhagvasuren, T., Oyun, S., & Batchuluun, B. (2007). Online medical

diagnosis and training in rural Mongolia. Distance Education, 28(2), 195-211.

Amundsen, C. L., & Bernard, R. M. (1989). Institutional support for peer contact in distance

education: an empirical investigation. Distance Education, 10(1), 7-27.

Andrade, M. S., & Bunker, E. L. (2009). A model for self-regulated distance language learning.


Andrews, J., & Strain, J. (1985). Computer-assisted distance education: off-line and online

American experiences. Distance Education, 6(2), 143-157.

Bahlman, G. W., & Robertshaw, M. (1989). The development of a distance-taught introductory

Computing course in the South Pacific. Distance Education, 10(1), 28-40.

Balasubramanian, K., Thamizoli, P., Umar, A., & Kanwar, A. (2010). Using mobile phones to

promote lifelong learning among rural women in Southern India. Distance Education,

31(2), 193-209.


72

Baran, E., & Correia, A. (2009). Student-led facilitation strategies in online discussions.


Bates, A. W. (1997). The impact of technological change on open and distance learning.


Bawane, J., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Prioritization of online instructor roles: implications for

competency-based teacher education programs. Distance Education, 30(3), 383-397.

Beckett, G. H., Amaro-Jimenez, C., & Beckett, K. S. (2010). Students’ use of asynchronous

discussions for academic discourse socialization. Distance Education, 31(3), 315-335.

Beckmann, E. A. (2010). Learners on the move: mobile modalities in development studies.


Belawati, T. (1998). Increasing student persistence in Indonesian post-secondary distance

education. Distance education, 19(1), 81-108.

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: integrating new technologies to foster student

interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153.

Benson, R., & Rye, O. (1996). Visual reports by video: an evaluation. Distance Education,

17(1), 117-131.

Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of e-learning: using

transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21.

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., & Borokbovski, E. (2004). A methodological morass? How we

can improve quantitative research in distance education? Distance Education, 25(2), 175-

198.

Bernard, R. M., Brauer, A., Abrami, P. C., & Surkes, M. (2004). The development of a

questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement. Distance Education, 25(1), 31-


73

47.

Bernard, R. M., & de Rubalcava, B. R. (2000). Collaborative online distance learning: issues for

future practice and research. Distance education, 21(2). 260-277.

Bernt, F. M., & Bugbee Jr, A. C. (1993). Study practices and attitudes related to academic

success in a distance learning programme. Distance Education, 14(1), 97-112.

Berry, J., & O’Shea, T. (1984). Mathematical modeling at a distance. Distance Education, 5(2),

163-173.

Bethel, E. C., & Bernard, R. M. (2010). Developments and trends in synthesizing diverse forms

of evidence: beyond comparisons between distance education and classroom instruction.


Beuchot, A., & Bullen, M. (2005). Interaction and interpersonality in online discussion forums.


Biner, P., Barone, N., Welsh, K., & Dean, R. (1997). Relative academic performance and its

relation to facet and overall satisfaction with interactive telecourses. Distance education,

18(2), 318-326.

Bishop, A. (2002). Come into my Parlour said the spider to the fly: critical reflections on Web-

based education from a student’s perspective. Distance Education, 23(2), 231-236.

Bjorck, U. (2002). Distributed problem-based learning in social economy – key issues in

students’ mastery of a structured method for education. Distance Education, 23(1), 85-

103.

Bollettino, V., & Bruderlein, C. (2008). Training humanitarian professionals at a distance: testing

the feasibility of distance learning with humanitarian professionals. Distance Education,

29(3), 269-287.


74

Bolliger, D. U., & Halupa, C. (2011). Student perceptions of satisfaction and anxiety in an online

doctoral program. Distance Education, 33(1), 81-98.

Bolliger, D. U., & Shepherd, C. E. (2010). Student perceptions of ePortfolio integration in online

courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 295-314.

Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online

teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.

Bolton, G. (1986). The opportunities of distance. Distance Education, 7(1), 5-22.

Bonk, C. J., & Zhang, K. (2006). Introducing the R2D2 Model: online learning for the diverse

learners of this world. Distance Education, 27(2), 249-264.

Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are

contextual and designed student-student interaction treatments equally effective in

distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311-329.

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Graham, C. R. (2013). The influence of asynchronous video

communication on learner social presence: a narrative analysis of four cases. Distance

Education, 34(1), 48-63.

Boshier, R., Mohapi, M., Moulton, G., Qayyum, A., Sadownik, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Best

and worst dressed web courses: strutting into the 21st century in comfort and style.

Distance education, 18(2), 327-349.

Bossu, C., Bull, D., & Brown, M. (2012). Opening up down under: the role of open educational

resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia. Distance Education, 33(2), 151-164.

Boucher, T. A., & Barron, M. H. (1986). The effects of computer-based marking on completion

Rates and student achievement for students taking a secondary-level distance education

Course. Distance Education, 7(2), 275-280.


75

Bowser, D., & Race, K. (1991). Orientation for distance education students: what is its worth?


Brace-Govan, J., & Clulow, V. (2000). Varying expectations of online students and the

implications for teachers: findings from a journal study. Distance education, 21(1), 118-

135.

Brew, A., & Wright, T. (1990). Changing teaching styles. Distance Education, 11(2), 183-212.

Broadbridge, A., & Davies, K. (1993). Management education at a distance and its effects on

career progression: the case of MBA in retailing and wholesailing students. Distance

Education, 14(1), 6-26.

Brown, S., & Nathenson, M. (1981). Designing instructional materials: guesswork or facts?


Bruno, J. E., & Pedroza, H. A. (1994). Designing distance learning programmes for Limited

English Proficient (LEP) students in large urban areas: an application of perceptual

mapping and conjoint analysis methods. Distance Education, 15(2), 196-216.

Burke, C., Lundin, R., & Daunt, C. (1997). Pushing the boundaries of interaction in

videoconferencing: a dialogical approach. Distance education, 18(2), 350-361.

Bynner, J. (1986). Master teaching in education by distance methods. Distance Education, 7(1),

23-37.

Catchpole, M. (1986). A guide to producing and hosting a live-interactive telecourse. Distance

Education, 7(1), 129-142.

Chabon, S. S., Cain, R. E., & Lee-Wilkerson, D. (2001). Facilitating those dreaded discussions

on diversity, through threaded discussions: an inter-institutional, internet-based model.



76

Chen, T., Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2008). The adaptation of Chinese international students to

online flexible learning: two case studies. Distance Education, 29(3), 307-323.

Cheung, D. (1998). Developing a student evaluation instrument for distance teaching. Distance

education, 19(1), 23-42.

Childress, M. D., Braswell, R. (2006). Using massively multiplayer online role-playing games

for online learning. Distance Education, 27(2), 187-196.

Chinnappan, M. (2006). Using the productive pedagogies framework to build a community of

learners online in Mathematics education. Distance Education, 27(3), 355-369.

Cho, M., & Shen, D. (2013). Self-regulation in online learning. Distance Education, 34(3), 290-

301.

Clayton, D., & Arger, G. (1989). Computers in the instructional process in distance education –

examining relationship between usage, expectations and software acquisition. Distance

Education, 10(2), 242-257.

Coldeway, D. O., & Spencer, R. E. (1982). Keller’s personalized system of instruction: the

search for a basic distance learning paradigm. Distance Education, 3(1), 51-71.

Compton, L., Davis, N., & Correia, A. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ preconceptions,

misconceptions, and concerns about virtual schooling. Distance Education, 31(1), 37-54.

Coniam, D. (1993). Coordinating survey’s distance learning Master’s programme in HongKong:

principles and problems. Distance Education, 14(1), 113-126.

Conrad, D. (2002). Inhibition, integrity, and etiquette among online learners: the art of Niceness.


Correia, A., Davis, N. (2008). Intersecting communities of practice in distance education: the

program team and the online course community. Distance Education, 29(3), 289-306.


77

Cresswell, R., & Hobson, P. (1996). Fallacies and assumptions in the use of student evaluation of

distance teaching materials. Distance Education, 17(1), 132-144.

Cropley, A. J., & Kahl, T. N. (1983). Distance education and distance learning: some

psychological considerations. Distance Education, 4(1), 27-39.

Cross, R. F. (1996). Video-taped lectures for honours students on international industry based

learing. Distance Education, 17(2), 369-386.

Daniel, J. S., & Stroud, M. A. (1981). Distance education, a reassessment for the 1980s. Distance

Education, 2(2), 146-163.

Darabi, A., & Jin, L. (2013). Improving the quality of online discussion: the effects of strategies

designed based on cognitive load theory principles. Distance Education, 34(1), 21-36.

Darabi, A. A., Silorski, E. G., & Harvey, R. B. (2006). Validated competencies for distance

teaching. Distance Education, 27(1), 105-122.

Dean, A. M., & Webster, L. (2000). Simulations in distance education: progress towards an

evaluation instrument. Distance education, 21(2), 344-360.

Dennen, V. P., Darabi, A. A., & Smith, L. J. (2007). Instructor-learner interaction in online

courses: the relative perceived importance of particular instructor actions on performance

and satisfaction. Distance Education, 28(1), 65-79.

Dickey, M. D. (2003). Teaching in 3D: pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual

worlds for synchronous distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 105-121.

Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Integrating technologies into educational ecosystems. Distance

Education, 29(2), 127-140.

Dillon, C. L., Gunawardena, C. N., & Parker, R. (1992). Learner support: the critical link in

distance education. Distance Education, 13(1), 29-45.


78

Ding, X. (1994). China’s higher distance education – its four systems and their structural

characteristics at three levels. Distance Education, 15(2), 327-346.

Dobrovolny, J. (2006). How adults learn from self-paced, technology-based corporate training:

new focus for leaners, new focus for designers. Distance Education, 27(2), 155-170.

Donald, C., Blake, A., Girault, I., Datt, A., & Ramsay, E. (2009). Approaches to learning design:

past the head and the hands to the HEART of the matter. Distance Education, 30(2), 179-

199.

Dray, B. J., Lowenthal, P. R., Miszkiewicz, M. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Marczynski, K. (2011).

Developing an instrument to assess student readiness for online learning: a validation

study. Distance Education, 32(1), 29-47.

Duignan, P. A., & Teather, D. C. B. (1985). Teaching educational administration externally at

post-graduate level at the University of New England. Distance Education, 6(1), 34-55.

Dunbar, R. (1991). Adapting distance education for Indonesians: problems with learner

heteronomy and a strong oral tradition. Distance Education, 12(2), 163-174.

Dymock, D., & Hobson, P. (1998). Collaborative learning through audioconferencing and

voicemail – a case study. Distance education, 19(1), 157-171.

Earl, K. (2013). Student views on short-text assignment formats in fully online courses. Distance

Education, 34(2), 161-174.

Eastmond, D. V. (1994). Adult distance study through computer conferencing. Distance

Education, 15(1), 128-152.

Edwards, M., Perry, B., & Janzen, K. (2011). The making of an exemplary online educator.


Eisenberg, E., & Dowsett, T. (1990). Student drop-out from a distance education project course:


79

A new method of analysis. Distance Education, 11(2), 231-253.

Falck, A. K., Kronlund, H. T., Kynaslahti, H., Salminen, J., & Salonen, M. (1997). Testing

virtual classroom in the school context. Distance Education, 18(2), 213-224.

Ferman, T., & Page, M. (2000). Beyond product: materials development as a vehicle for

professional growth. Distance education, 21(2), 323-343.

Fields, B. A. (1989). Minimal intervention in-service teacher education: a strategy for training

teachers at a distance. Distance Education, 10(2), 184-195.

Field, J. (1995). Globalisation, consumption and the learning business. Distance Education,

16(2), 270-283.

Finkel, A. (1985). Teaching History at a distance. Distance Education, 6(1), 56-67.

Fulcher, G., & Lock, D. (1999). Distance education: the future of library and information

services requirements. Distance education, 20(2), 313-329.

Furnborough, C. (2012). Making the most of others: autonomous interdependence in adult

beginner distance language learners. Distance Education, 33(1), 99-116.

Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions

and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 30(3), 399-418.

Garland, M. R. (1993). Student perceptions of the situational, institutional, dispositional and

epistemological barriers to persistence. Distance Education, 14(2), 181-198.

Garrison, D. R. (1985). Three generations of technological innovations in distance education.


Garrison, D. R. (1987). Researching dropout in distance education. Distance Education, 8(1),

95-101.

Garrison, D. R. (1993). A cognitive constructivist view of distance education: an analysis of


80

Teaching-learning assumptions. Distance Education, 14(2), 199-211.

Garrison, D. R. (1995). Constructivism and the role of self-instructional course materials: a

reply. Distance Education, 16(1), 136-140.

Gee, T. W. (1991). Program equity in Alberta’s small rural schools. Distance Education, 12(2),

175-190.

Gillies, D. (2008). Student perspectives on videoconferencing in teacher education at a distance.


Goodfellow, R., Lea, M., Gonzalez, F., & Mason, R. (2001). Opportunity and e-quality:

intercultural and linguistic issues in global online learning. Distance education, 22(1),

65-84.

Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2008). University students’ approaches to learning: rethinking the

place of technology. Distance Education, 29(2), 141-152.

Goyen, M., & Roome, W. (1998). Economics for distance learners and the promise of new

communications technologies. Distance education, 19(2), 319-336.

Graham, M., & Scarborough, H. (2001). Enhancing the learning environment for distance

education students. Distance Education, 22(2), 232-244.

Green, N. C. (2006). Everyday life in distance education: one family’s home schooling

experience. Distance Education, 27(1), 27-44.

Gregory, J., & Salmon, G. (2013). Professional development for online university teaching.


Griffiths, D., Beauvior, P., Liber, O., & Barrett-Baxendale, M. (2009). From reload to recourse:

learning from IMS learning design implementations. Distance Education, 30(2), 201-222.

Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Alvarez, M., & Kirschner, P. (2013). Effects of feedback on


81

collaborative writing in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324-

338.

Gunawardena, C. N., Ortegano-Layne, L., Carabajal, K., Frechette, C., Lindemann, K., &

Jennings, B. (2006). New model, new strategies: instructional design for building online

wisdom communities. Distance Education, 27(2), 217-232.

Gunawardena, C. N., Nolla, A. C., Wilson, P. L., Lopez-Islas, J. R., Ramirez-Angel, N., &

Megchen-Alpizar, R. M. (2001). A cross-cultural study of group process and development

in online conferences. Distance education, 22(1), 85-121.

Hagel, P., & Shaw, R. N. (2006). Students’ perceptions of study modes. Distance Education,

27(3), 283-302.

Halabi, A. K., Tuovinen, J. E., & Smyrnios, K. X. (2000). Using CBL to improve cognitive load

and reduce feedback redundancy in Accounting distance learning. Distance education,

21(1), 162-182.

Hall, D., & Knox, J. (2009). Issues in the education of TESOL teachers by distance education.


Halverson, L. R., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Drysdale, J. S. (2012). An analysis of high

impact scholarship and publication trends in blended learning. Distance Education, 33(3),

381-413.

Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Lei, P., & Farmer, T. W. (2008). Effectiveness of using learner-

centered principles on student retention in distance education courses in rural schools.


Harden, T., Barnard, I., & Hong, E. (1991). An innovative on-shore/off-shore science

programme. Distance Education, 12(1), 123-131.


82

Harley, M. F. (1985). An alternative organizational model for early childhood distance education

programs. Distance Education, 6(2), 158-168.

Harman, C., & Dorman, M. (1998). Enriching distance teaching and learning of undergraduate

mathematics using videoconferencing and audiographics. Distance education, 19(2), 299-

318.

Hase, S., & Saenger, H. (1997). Videomail – a personalized approach to providing feedback on

assessment to distance learners. Distance education, 18(2), 361-368.

Hawkins, A., Graham, C. R., Sudweeks, R. R., & Barbour, M. K. (2013). Academic

performance, course completion rates, and student perception of the quality and frequency

of interaction in a virtual high school. Distance Education, 34(1), 64-83.

Hayford, J. (1996). The open learning initiative: a successful marketing strategy or a devaluation

of the Australian system of higher education? Distance Education, 17(1), 159-180.

Hedberg, J., & Ping, L. C. (2004). Charting trends for e-learning in Asian schools. Distance

Education, 25(2), 199-213.

Henderson, L., & Putt, I. (1993). The Remote Area Teacher Program (RATEP): cultural

contextualization of distance education through interactive. Distance Education, 14(2),

212-231.

Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: a synergy among

learner, task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233-247.

Hiemstra, A., Hummel, H., & Sint, M. (1996). An audio practical for a distance course on expert

systems: a situated learning perspective. Distance Education, 17(1), 181-195.

Higgins, K., & Harreveld, R. E. (2013). Professional development and the university casual

academic: integration and support strategies for distance education. Distance Education,


83

34(2), 189-200.

Hilton III, J. L., Graham, C., Rich, P., & Wiley, D. (2010). Using online technologies to extend a

classroom to learners at a distance. Distance Education, 31(1), 77-92.

Hockings, C., Brett, P., & Terentjevs, M. (2012). Making a difference – inclusive learning and

teaching in higher education through open educational resources. Distance Education,

33(2), 237-252.

Hockridge, D. (2013). Challenges for educators using distance and online education to prepare

students for relational professions. Distance Education, 34(2), 142-160.

Holmberg, B. (1981). Independent study for university degrees distance education compared

with the Keller Plan. Distance Education, 2(1), 39-53.

Holmber, R. G., & Bakshi, T. S. (1982). Laboratory work in distance education. Distance

Education, 3(2), 198-206.

Holt, D., Petzall, S., & Viljoen, J. (1990). Unleashing the forces: face-to-face study groups at a

distance. Distance Education, 11(1), 125-149.

Holt, D. M., & Thompson, D. J. (1998). Managing information technology in open and distance

higher education. Distance education, 19(2), 197-227.

Holt, M. D. (1993). Changing conceptions and practices of management: professional learning

from an MBA experience by distance education. Distance Education, 14(2), 232-259.

Hosie, P. (1988). Realistic uses of AUSSAT for distance education in Western Australian

Australian primary and secondary schools. Distance Education, 9(1), 27-47.

Hough, M. (1984). Motivation of adults: implications of adult learning theories for distance

education. Distance Education, 5(1), 7-23 .

Howard, D. C. (1985). Reading and study skills and the distance learner. Distance Education,


84

6(2), 169-188.

Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student perceptions as distance learners in internet-base

courses. Distance Education, 23(2), 183-195.

Hurd, S. (2006). Towards a better understanding of the dynamic role of the distance language

learner: learner perceptions of personality, motivation, roles, and approaches. Distance

Education, 27(3), 303-329.

Inglis, A. (1999). Is online delivery less costly than print and is it meaningful to ask? Distance

education, 20(2), 220-239.

Irlbeck, S., Kays, E., Jones, D., & Sims, R. (2006). The phoenix rising: emergent models of

instructional design. Distance Education, 27(2), 171-185.

Jackson, L. C., Jackson, A. C., & Chambers, D. (2013). Establishing an online community of

inquiry at the Distance Education Centre, Victoria. Distance Education, 34(3), 353-367.

James, R., & Beattie, K. (1996). Postgraduate coursework beyond the classroom: issues in

Implementing flexible delivery. Distance Education, 17(2), 355-368.

Jamtsho, S., & Bullen, M. (2007). Distance education in Bhutan: improving access and quality

through ICT use. Distance Education, 28(2), 149-161.

Jegede, O. J. (1994). Distance education research priorities for Australia: a study of the opinions

of distance educators and practitioners. Distance Education, 15(2), 234-253.

Jegede, O., Taplin, M., Fan, R. Y. K., Chan, M. S. C., & Yum, J. (1999). Differences between

low and high achieving distance learners in locus of control and metacognition. Distance

education, 20(2), 255-273.

Jelfs, A., Richardson, J. T. E., & Price, L. (2009). Student and tutor perceptions of effective

tutoring in distance education. Distance Education, 30(3), 419-441.


85

Jennings, P. J., & Atkinson, R. J. (1982). Learning computer programming at a distance.


Jonassen, D., Prevish, T., Christy, D., & Stavrulaki, E. (1999). Learning to solve problems on the

Web: aggregate planning in a business management course. Distance education, 20(1),

49-63.

Joughin, G., & Johnston, S. (1994). The experience of collaboration: writing and instructional

design in distance education. Distance Education, 15(1), 6-22.

Junor, L. (1992). Teaching by tape: some benefits, problems, and solutions. Distance Education,

13(1), 93-107.

Kahl, T. N., & Cropley, A. J. (1986). Face-to-face versus distance learning: psychological

Consequences and practical implications. Distance Education, 7(1), 38-48.

Kanuka, H. (2002). Guiding principles for facilitating higher levels of Web-based distance

teaching and learning in post-secondary settings. Distance Education, 23(2), 163-182.

Kanuka, H., & Nocente, N. (2003). Exploring the effects of personality type on perceived

satisfaction with web-based learning in continuing professional development. Distance

Education, 24(2), 227-244.

Kaufman, D. (1984). Practice and theory of distance education: course blueprint. Distance

Education, 5(2), 239-251.

Keegan, D. J. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education, 1(1), 13-36.

Kehrwald, B. (2008). Understanding social presence in text-based online learning environments.


Kelly, M. E. (1987). Course teams and instructional design in Australian distance education: a

Replay to Shaw and Taylor. Distance Education, 8(1), 106-120.


86

Kember, D. (1982). External science courses: the practical problem. Distance Education, 3(2),

207-225.

Kember, D. (1989). An illustration, with case studies, of a linear-process model of drop-out from


Kember, D. (1994). The teacher is more important than the medium: pre-packaged instructional

materials are not axiomatic with surface learning. Distance Education, 15(1), 153-159.

Kember, D., & Mezger, R. (1990). The instructional designer as a staff developer: a course team

approach consistent with the Concerns-Based Adoption Model. Distance Education,

11(1), 50-70.

Kennepohl, D., & Last, A. M. (2000). Teaching Chemistry at Canada’s Open University.


Kim, C. (2008). Using email to enable e3 (effective, efficient, and engaging) learning. Distance

Education, 29(2), 187-198.

Kirkwood, A. (1998). New media mania: can information and communication technologies

enhance the quality of open and distance learning? Distance education, 19(2), 228-241.

Kirschner, P., Meester, M., Middelbeek, E., & Hermans, H. (1993). Learning objectives for

science practicals at traditional and distance universities. Distance Education, 14(2),

260-282.

Kirschner, P., Valcke, M. M. A., & Vilsteren, P. v. (1997). Business game learning environment:

design and development of a competency-based distance education business curriculum at

the Open universiteit. Distance Education, 18(1), 153-177.

Klingsieck, K. B., Fries, S., Horz, C., & Hofer, M. (2012). Procrastination in a distance

university setting. Distance Education, 33(3), 295-310.


87

Kloeden, P. E., & McDonald, R. J. (1981). Student feedback in teaching and improving an

external mathematics course. Distance Education, 2(1), 54-63.

Knox, D. M. (1997). A review of the use of video-conferencing for actuarial education – a three-

year case study. Distance education, 18(2), 225-235.

Koseoglu, S., & Doering, A. (2011). Understanding complex ecologies: an investigation of

student experiences in adventure learning programs. Distance Education, 32(3), 339-355.

Koshy, K., Bonato, J., & Faasalaina, T. (1994). Chemistry through distance teaching – a South

Pacific experiment. Distance Education, 15(2), 291-299.

Koszalka, T., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: a taxonomy to guide strategic use

of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education.


Koszalka, T. A., & Ntloedibe-Kuswani, G. S. (2010). Literature on the safe and disruptive

learning potential of mobile technologies. Distance Education, 31(2), 139-157.

Kuboni, O. (2009). Role of the local center in strengthening student support in UWI’s distributed

learning programmes. Distance Education, 30(3), 363-381.

Kuboni, O., & Martin, A. (2004). An assessment of support strategies used to facilitate distance

students’ participation in a web-based learning environment in the University of the West

Indies. Distance Education, 25(1), 7-29.

Kuffner, H. (1984). Computer-assisted applications in distance teaching and evaluation. Distance

Education, 5(1), 38-49.

Laaser, W. (1993). Design, production and evaluation of computer-based courseware in distance


Lange, J. C. (1986). New technology and distance education: the case of Australia. Distance


88

Education, 7(1), 49-67.

LaPointe, D. K., & Gunawardena, C. N. (2004). Developing, testing and refining of a model to

understand the relationship between peer interaction and learning outcomes in computer-

mediated conferencing. Distance Education, 25(1), 83-106.

Lappia, A., & Lappia, A. (1989). Audio-cassette tapes in distance teaching: student evaluation.


Latchem, C. (2007). A framework for researching Asian open and distance learning. Distance

Education, 28(2), 133-147.

Lawrence, B., & Lentle-Keenan, S. (2013). Teaching beliefs and practice, institutional context,

and the uptake of web-based technology. Distance Education, 34(1), 4-20.

Lehtinen, E. (2002). Developing models for distributed problem-based learning: theoretical and

methodological reflection. Distance Education, 23(1), 109-117.

Leong, P. (2011). Role of social presence and cognitive absorption in online learning

environments. Distance Education, 32(1), 5-28.

Lester, N. C. (1993). Can a degree in visual arts be taught at a distance? Distance Education,

14(1), 27-39.

Li, N., Lee, K., & Kember, D. (2000). Towards self-direction in study methods: the ways in

which new students learn to study part-time. Distance education, 21(1), 6-28.

Liao, L. (2006). A flow theory perspective on learner motivation and behavior in distance


Librero, F., Ramos, A. J., Ranga, A. I., Trinona, J., & Lambert, D. (2007). Uses of the cell phone

for education in the Philippines and Mongolia. Distance Education, 28(2), 231-244.

Lobry de Bruyn, L. (2004). Monitoring online communication: can the development of


89

convergence and social presence indicate an interactive learning environment? Distance

Education, 25(1), 67-81.

Lockwood, F., & Latchem, C. (2004). Staff development needs and provision in Commonwealth

countries: finding from a commonwealth of learning training impact study. Distance

Education, 25(2), 159-173.

Lou, Y. (2004). Learning to solve complex problems through between-group collaboration in

project-based online courses. Distance Education, 25(1), 49-66.

Luschei, T. F., Dimyati, S., & Padmo, D. (2008). Maintaining e3-learning while transitioning to

online instruction: the case of the Open University of Indonesia. Distance Education,

29(2), 165-174.

Macdonald, J., & Hills, L. (2005). Combing reflective logs with electronic networks for

professional development among distance education tutors. Distance Education, 26(3),

325-339.

Macdonald, J., & Poniatowska, B. (2011). Designing the professional development of staff for

teaching online: an OU (UK) case study. Distance Education, 32(1), 119-134.

Macpherson, C., & Smith, A. (1998). Academic authors’ perceptions of the instructional design

and development process for distance education: a case study. Distance education, 19(1),

124-141.

Malbran, M, del C., & Villar, C. M. (2001). Incorporating cultural relevance into online courses:

the case of VirtualMente. Distance education, 22(1), 168-174.

Mann, C. C. (1998). Quality assurance in distance education: the Surrey MA (TESOL)

experience. Distance education, 19(1), 7-22.

Marland, P., Patching, W., & Putt, I. (1992). Thinking while studying: a process tracing study of


90

distance learners. Distance Education, 13(2), 193-217.

Marland, P. W., & Store, R. E. (1982). Some instructional strategies for improving learning from

distance teaching materials. Distance Education, 3(1), 72-106.

Marland, P., Patching, W., Putt, P., & Store, R. (1984). Learning from distance-teaching

materials: a study of students’ mediating responses. Distance Education, 5(2), 215-236.

Marsden, R. (1996). Time, space and distance education. Distance Education, 17(2), 222-246.

Martens, R., Bastiaens, T., & Kirschner, P. A. (2007). New learning design in distance

education: the impact on student perception and motivation. Distance Education, 28(1),

81-93.

Martens, R. L., Valcke, M. M. A., Portier, S. J., Weges, H. G., & Poelmans, P. H. A. G. (1997).

Research with interactive learning environments in three content domains: descriptive

statistics, continuous mathematics and substantive criminal law. Distance Education,

18(1), 44-58.

Masterman, E., Jameson, J., & Walker, S. (2009). Capturing teachers’ experience of learning

design through case studies. Distance Education, 30(2), 223-238.

McAlpine, I. (2000). Collaborative learning online. Distance education, 21(1), 66-80.

McConnell, D. (2002). Action research and distributed problem-based learning in continuing

professional education. Distance Education, 23(1), 59-83.

McDonald, R., Sansom, D., & White, M. (1981). Flexible pacing of external study. Distance

Education, 2(2), 189-198.

McGill, T. J., Volet, S. E., & Hobbs, V. J. (1997). Studying computer programming externally:

who succeeds? Distance education, 18(2), 236-256.

McLinden, M., McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2006). Participation in online problem-


91

based learning: insights from postgraduate teachers studying through open and distance


McLoughlin, C. (2001). Inclusivity and alignment: principles of pedagogy, task and assessment

design for effective cross-cultural online learning. Distance education, 22(1), 7-29.

McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments: the

dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.

McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (1998). Planning a telelearning environment to foster higher order

thinking. Distance education, 19(2), 242-264.

Meintjes, L. J. (1987). Program development: plan for success – take time to succeed. Distance

Education, 8(2), 162-175.

Menchaca, M. P., & Bekele, T. A. (2008). Learner and instructor identified success factors in


Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered

instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199-207.

Miao, Y., van der Klink, M., Boon, J., Sloep, P., & koper, R. (2009). Enabling teachers to

develop pedagogically sound and technically executable learning designs. Distance

Education, 30(2), 259-276.

Mihkelson, A., & Klease, G. (1993). ‘Unilearn Chemistry’ – an Australian initiative for the

independent learner. Distance Education, 14(2), 297-302.

Milne, H. J. O. (1987). Designing a distance education model for preparation of teachers of

gifted children: an Australian perspective. Distance Education, 8(2), 227-250.

Moore, M. G. (1981). John Baath’s correspondence education in the light of a number of

contemporary teaching models. Distance Education, 2(1), 91-97.


92

Moore, M. G. (1987). Distance learning in the United States: the near future. Distance

Education, 8(1), 38-46.

Morgan, A. (1984). A report on qualitative methodologies in research in distance education.


Morgan, C. J., Dingsdag, D., & Saenger, H. (1998). Learning strategies for distance learners: do

they help? Distance education, 19(1), 142-156.

Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education student

attrition. Distance education, 20(1), 96-108.

Motteram, G., & Forrester, G. (2005). Becoming an online distance learner: what can be learned

from students’ experiences of induction to distance programmes? Distance Education,

26(3), 281-298.

Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: a factor analytic


Murphy, A. (2013). Open educational practices in higher education: institutional adoption and

challenges. Distance Education, 34(2), 201-217.

Murphy, K. L., & Cifuentes, L. (2001). Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online.


Murphy, K. L., Mahoney, S. E., Chen, C., Mendoza-Diaz, N. V., & Yang, X. (2005). A

constructivist model of mentoring, coaching, and facilitating online discussions. Distance

Education, 26(3), 341-366.

Murphy, L. M., Shelley, M. A., White, C. J., & Baumann, U. (2011). Tutor and student

perceptions of what makes an effective distance language teacher. Distance Education,

32(3), 397-419.


93

Naidu, S. (1994). Applying learning and instructional strategies in open and distance learning.


Naidu, S. (1997). Collaborative reflective practice: an instructional design architecture for the

Internet. Distance education, 18(2), 257-283.

Naidu, S., & Bernard, R. M. (1992). Enhancing academic performance in distance education

with concept mapping and inserted uestions. Distance Education, 13(2), 218-233.

Nandi, D., Hamilton, M., & Harland, J. (2012). Evaluating the quality of interaction in

asynchronous discussion forums in fully online courses. Distance Education, 33(1), 5-30.

Nichols, M. (2010). Student perceptions of support services and the influence of targeted

interventions on retention in distance education. Distance Education. 31(1), 93-113.

Nielsen, H. D. (1997). Quality assessment and quality assurance in distance teacher education.


Nikoi, S., & Armellini, A. (2012). The OER mix in higher education: purpose, process, product,

and policy. Distance Education, 33(2), 165-184.

Nyirenda, J. E. (1983). Distance education at the secondary level: a Zambian study. Distance

Education, 4(1), 80-94.

Nyirenda, J. E. (1989).Organization of distance education at the University of Zambia: an

Analysis of the practice. Distance Education, 10(1), 148-156.

Oliver, K., Kellogg, S., Townsend, L., & Brady, K. (2010). Needs of elementary and middle

school teachers developing online courses for a virtual school. Distance Education, 31(1),

55-75.

Oliver, K., Osborne, J., & Brady, K. (2009). What are secondary students’ expectations for

teachers in virtual school environments? Distance Education, 30(1), 23-45.


94

Oliver, R. (1999). Exploring strategies for online teaching and learning. Distance education,

20(2), 240-254.

Orrill, C. H. (2002). Supporting online PBL: design considerations for supporting distributed

problem solving. Distance Education, 23(1), 41-57.

Ostman, R. E., & Wagner, G. A. (1987). New Zealand management students’ perceptions of

communication technologies in correspondence education. Distance Education, 8(1), 47-

63.

Otoole, S. (1999). Barriers to professional education of NSW correctional officers: a case of

distance learning. Distance education, 20(2), 295-312.

Painte, C., Coffin, C., & Hewings, A. (2003). Impacts of directed tutorial activities in computer

conferencing: a case study. Distance Education, 24(2), 159-173.

Panda, S. K. (1992). Distance educational research in India: stock-talking, concerns and

prospects. Distance Education, 13(2), 309-326.

Paulus, T. M. (2005). Collaborative and cooperative approaches to online group work: the

impact of task type. Distance Education. 26(1), 111-125.

Paz Dennen, V. (2005). From message posting to learning dialogues: factors affecting learner

participation in asynchronous discussion. Distance Education, 26(1), 127-148.

Paz Dennen, V., & Wieland, K. (2007). From interaction to intersubjectivity: facilitating online

group distance processes. Distance Education, 28(3), 281-297.

Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2010). Monitoring collaborative activities in computer

supported clooaborative learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5-22.

Peruniak, G. (1983). Interactive perspectives in distance education: a case study. Distance

Education, 4(1), 63-79.


95

Phelan, L. (2012). Interrogating students’ perceptions of their online learning experiences with

Brookfield’s critical incident questionnaire. Distance Education, 33(1), 31-44.

Philip, R., & Nicholls, J. (2007). Theatre online: the design and drama of e-learning. Distance

Education, 28(3), 261-279.

Phillips, C. (1990). Making friends in the ‘electronic student lounge’. Distance Education,

11(2), 320-333.

Pincas, A. (2001). Culture, cognition and communication in global education. Distance

education, 22(1), 30-51.

Pittenger, A., & Doering, A. (2010). Influence of motivational design on completion rates in

online self-study pharmacy-content courses. Distance Education, 31(3), 275-293.

Pittenger, A. L., & Olson-Kellogg, B. (2011). Leveraging learning technologies for collaborative

writing in an online pharmacotherapy course. Distance Education, 33(1), 61-80.

Porras-Hernandez, L. H. (2000). Student variables in the evaluation of mediated learning

environment. Distance education, 21(2), 385-405.

Portier, S. J., Hermans, H. J. H., Valcke, M. M. A., & van den Bosch, H. M. J. (1997). An

electronic workbook to study statistics: design and evaluation. Distance Education, 18(1),

59-75.

Potter, C., & Naidoo, G. (2009). Evaluating large-scale interactive radio programmes. Distance

Education, 30(1), 117-141.

Potter, C., & Naidoo, G. (2006). Using interactive radio to enhance classroom learning and

research schools, classrooms, teachers, and learners. Distance Education, 27(1), 63-86.

Pugh, H. L., Parchman, S. W., & Simpson, H. (1992). Video telecommunications for distance

education: a field survey of systems in US public education, industry and the military.


96


Ramos, F., Taju, G., & Canuto, L. (2011). Promoting distance education in higher education in

Cape Verde and Mozambique. Distance Education, 32(2), 159-175.

Rassmussen, K. L., Nichols, J. C., & Ferguson, F. (2006). It’s a new world: multiculturalism in a

virtual environment. Distance Education, 27(2), 265-278.

Redding, R. E. (1995). Cognitive task analysis for instructional design: applications in distance


Renner, W. (1995). Post-Fordist visions and technological solutions: educational technology and

the labour process. Distance Education, 16(2), 284-301.

Rennie, F. (2003). The use of flexible learning resources for geographically distributed rural

students. Distance Education, 24(1), 25-39.

Reushle, S. E. (1995). Design considerations and features in the development of hypermedia

courseware. Distance Education, 16(1), 141-156.

Richter, T., & McPherson, M. (2012). Open educational resoruces: education for the world?


Roberts, D. (1984). Ways and means of reducing early student drop-out rates. Distance

Education, 5(1), 50-71.

Roberts, D. (1996). Feedback on assignments. Distance Education, 17(1), 95-116.

Roberts, D. W. (1998). Effective use of distance education materials for on-campus learning.


Roberts, D., Boyton, B., Buete, S., & Dawson, D. (1991). Applying Kember’s Linear-Process

Model to distance education at Charles Sturt University-Riverina. Distance Education,

12(1), 54-84.


97

Roberts, D. W., Jackson, K., Osborne, J., & Vive, A. S. (1994). Attitudes and perceptions of

academic authors to the preparation of distance education materials at the University of

Tasmania. Distance Education, 15(1), 70-93.

Roberts, N., & Vanska, R. (2011). Challenging assumptions: mobile learning for Mathematics

project in South Africa. Distance Education, 32(2), 243-259.

Robertson, B. (1987). Audio teleconferencing: low cost technology for external studies

networking. Distance Education, 8(1), 121-130.

Robinson, B. (1999). Open and distance learning in the Gobi Desert: non-formal education for

nomadic women. Distance education, 20(2), 181-204.

Robson, J. (1996). The effectiveness of teleconferencing in fostering interaction in distance


Ronteltap, F., & Eurelings, A. (2002). Activity and interaction of students in an electronic

learning environment for problem-based learning. Distance Education, 23(1), 11-22.

Ros i Sole, C., & Hopkins, J. (2007). Contrasting two approaches to distance language learning.


Ros i Sole, C., & Truman, M. (2005). Feedback in distance learning programmes in language;

attutudes to linguistic faults and implications for the learning process. Distance

Education, 26(3), 299-323.

Rothe, J. P. (1985). Audio teleconferencing and distance education: towards a conceptual

synthesis. Distance Education, 6(2), 199-208.

Rumble, G. (1981). Evaluating autonomous multi-media distance learning systems: a practical

approach. Distance Education, 2(1), 64-90.

Rumble, G. (2000). Student support in distance education in the 21st century: learning from


98

service management. Distance education, 21(2), 216-235.

Russo, T. C., & Campbell, S. (2004). Perceptions of mediated presence in an asynchronous

online course: interplay of communication behaviors and medium. Distance Education,

25(2), 215-232.

Sageder, J. (1988). Tests as means for promotion of learning from distance teaching. Distance

Education, 9(2), 234-249.

Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007). Adopting web-based learning and teaching: a case

study in higher education. Distance Education, 28(3), 313-333.

Samarawickrema, R. G. (2005). Determinants of student readiness for flexible learning: some

preliminary findings. Distance Education, 26(1), 49-66.

Scales, K. (1984). A study of the relationship between telephone contact and persistence.

Distance Education, 5(2), 268-276

Schell, B. H., & Thornton, J. A. (1985). A media course commitment study in a Canadian

university: empirical validation of an exchange model. Distance Education, 6(2), 209-

222.

Schwittmann, D. (1982). Time and learning in distance study. Distance Education, 3(1), 141-

156.

Segrave, S., & Holt, D. (2003). Contemporary learning environments: designing e-Learning for

education in the professions. Distance Education, 24(1), 7-24.

Sewart, D. (1980). Creating an information base for an individualized support system in distance


Shott, M. (1985). Teaching Physics at a distance. Distance Education, 6(1), 102-127.

Sibanda, B., & Northcott, P. (1989). Policy issues for distance education in the Southern Africa


99

coordination Conference region. Distance Education, 10(2), 212-229.

Simich-Dudgeon, C. (1998). Developing a college web-based course: lessons learned. Distance

education, 19(2), 337-357.

Simpson, H., Pugh, H. L., & Parchman, S. W. (1991). An experimental two-way video

teletraining system: design, development and evaluation. Distance Education, 12(2),

209-231.

Simpson, H., Pugh, H. L., & Parchman, S. W. (1993). Empirical comparison of alternative

Instructional TV technologies. Distance Education, 14(1), 147-164.

Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivityL aligning learner perceptions and expectations with

strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 87-103.

Sims, R. (2008). Rethinking (e)learning: a manifesto for connected generations. Distance

Education, 29(2), 153-164.

Sims, R., Dobbs, G., & Hand, T. (2002). Enhancing quality in online learning: scaffolding

planning and design through proactive evaluation. Distance Education, 23(2), 135-148.

Singh, G. (2011). An online abstract mentoring programme for junior researchers and healthcare

professionals. Distance Education, 32(2), 229-242.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop. M. J. (2009). Theoretical foundations for enhancing social

connectedness in online learning environments. Distance Education, 30(3), 291-315.

Slagter van Tryon, P. J., & Bishop. M. J. (2012). Evluating social connectedness online: the

design and development of the social perceptions in learning contexts instrument.


Smith, K. C. (1980). Course development procedures. Distance Education, 1(1), 61-67.

Smith, P. J. (2000). Preparedness for flexible delivery among vocational learners. Distance


100

Education, 21(1), 29-48.

Smith, P. J., & Smith, S. N. (1999). Differences between Chinese and Australian students: some

implications for distance educators. Distance education, 20(1), 64-80.

Smith, R. O. (2008). The paradox of trust in online collaborative groups. Distance Education,

29(3), 325-340.

Sparkes, J. J. (1983). The problem of creating a discipline of distance education. Distance

Education, 4(2), 179-186.

Stack, A. (1990). Administrative problems associated with regionalization. Distance Education,

11(1), 92-115.

Steinkuehler, C. A., Derry, S. J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Delmarcelle, M. (2002). Cracking the

resource nut with distributed problem-based learning in secondary teacher education.


Stewart, A. R., Harlow, D. B., & DeBacco, K. (2011). Students’ experience of synchronous

learning in distributed environments. Distance Education, 32(3), 357-381.

Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived

learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306-331.

Tait, A. (1993). Systems, values and dissent: quality assurance for open and distance learning.


Taplin, M. (2000). Problem-based learning in distance education: practitioners’ beliefs about an

action learning project. Distance education, 21(2), 278-299.

Taylor, J. C. (1986). Student persistence in distance education: a cross-cultural multi-institutional

perspective. Distance Education, 7(1), 68-91.

Taylor, J. D., Dearnley, C. A., Laxton, J. C., Coates, C. A., Treasure-Jones, T., Campbell, R. &


101

Hall, I. (2010). Developing a mobile learning solution for health and social care practice.

Distance Education, 31(2). 175-192.

Telg, R. W. (1996). How television production specialists learn distance education skills and

knowledge. Distance Education, 17(2), 289-303.

Thompson, G. (1984). The cognitive style of field-dependence as an explanatory construct in

distance education drop-out. Distance Education, 5(2), 286-293.

Thorpe, M. (1998). Assessment and ‘third generation’ distance education. Distance education,

19(2), 265-286.

Treagust, D. F., Waldripd, B. G., & Horley, J. F. (1993). Effectiveness of ISDN video-

conferencing: a case study of two campuses and two different courses. Distance

Education, 14(2), 315-330.

Tsay, M., Morgan, G., & Quick, D. (2000). Predicting students’ ratings of the importance of

strategies to facilitate self-directed distance learning in Taiwan. Distance education,

21(1), 49-65.

Tu, C., & Corry, M. (2001). A paradigm shift for online community research. Distance

Education, 22(2), 245-263.

Tynan, B., & O’Nell, M. (2007). Individual perseverance: a theory of home tutors’ management

of schooling in isolated settings. Distance Education, 28(1), 95-110.

Valcke, M. M. A., & Martens, R. L. (1997). An interactive learning and course development

environment: context, theoretical and empirical considerations. Distance Education,

18(1), 7-23.

Valcke, M. M. A., Martens, R. L., Poelmans, P. H. A. G., & Daal, M. M. (1993). The actual use

of embedded support devices in self-study materials by students in a distance education


102

setting. Distance Education, 14(1), 55-84.

Velasquez, A., Graham, C. R., & Osguthorpe, R. (2013). Caring in a technology-mediated online

high school context. Distance Education, 34(1), 97-118.

Vlachopoulos, P., & Cowan, J. (2010). Reconceptualising moderation in asynchronous online

discussion using grounded theory. Distance Education, 31(1), 23-36.

Vivian, V. (1986). Electronic mail in a children’s distance course: trial and evaluation. Distance

Education, 7(2), 237-260.

Vyas, R., Albright, S., Walker, D., Zachariah, A., & Lee, M. Y., (2010). Clinical training at

remote sites using mobile technology: an India-USA partnership. Distance Education,

31(2), 211-226.

Wade, C. E., Cameron, B.A., Morgan, K., & Williams, K. C. (2011). Are interpersonal

relationships necessary for developing trust in online group projects? Distance Education,

32(3), 383-396.

Wagemans, L., & Dochy F. (1991). Principles in the use of experiential learning as a source of

prior

knowledge. Distance Education, 12(1), 85-108.

Walker, J. (1989). Mark’s story: a disabled-student’s case study in distance education. Distance

Education, 10(2), 289-297.

Walker, J. (1994). Open learning: the answer to the government’s equity problems? A report of a

study on the potential impact of the Open Learning initiative on people with disabilities.


Walker, K., & Hackman, M. (1992). Multiple predictors of perceived learning and satisfaction:

The importance of information transfer and non-verbal immediacy in the televised course.


103


Wang, C., Shannon, D. M., & Ross, M. E. (2013). Students’ characteristics, self-regulated

learning, technology self-efficacy, and course outcomes in online learning. Distance

Education, 34(3), 302-323.

Wang, X., Dannenhoffer III, J. F., Davidson, B. D., & Spector, J. M. (2005). Design issues in a

cross-institutional collaboration on a distance education course. Distance Education,

26(3), 405-423.

Warner, L. (1993). WIST – a science and technology access programme for rural women: the

determinants of success. Distance Education, 14(1), 85-96.

Watson, S. (2013). Tentatively exploring the learning potentialities of postgraduate distance

learners’ interactions with other people in their life contexts. Distance Education, 34(2),

175-188.

Weges, H. G., & Portier, S. J. (1997). Demand driven education through the delivery of

interactive learning materials within the domain of Environment Law: design and research

findings. Distance Education, 18(1), 76-92.

Wertsch, J. V. (2002). Computer mediation, PBL, and dislogicality. Distance Education, 23(1),

105-108.

Whelan, R. (2008). Use of ICT in education in the South Pacific: findings of the Pacific

eLearning observatory. Distance Education, 29(1), 53-70.

White, C. (2005). Contribution of distance education to the development of individual learners.


White, C. J. (1997). Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning. Distance Education,

18(1), 178-196.


104

Wiesenberg, F., & Stacey, E. (2005). Reflections on teaching and learning online: quality

program design, delivery and support issues from a cross-global perspective. Distance

Education, 26(3), 385-404.

Wikeley, F., & Muschamp, Y. (2004). Pedagogical implications of working with doctoral

students at a distance. Distance Education, 25(1), 125-142.

Wille’n, B. (1983). Distance education in Swedish university. Distance Education, 4(2), 211-

222.

Willen, B. (1988). What happened to the Open University: briefly. Distance Education, 9(1),

71-83.

Williams, K. C., Morgan, K., & Cameron, B. A. (2011). How do students define their roles and

responsibilities in online learning group projects? Distance Education, 32(1), 49-62.

Williams, S. W., Watkins, K., Daley, B., Courtenay, B., Davis, M., & Dymock, D. (2001).

Facilitating cross-cultural online discussion groups: implications for practice. Distance

education, 22(1), 151-167.

Willmott, G., & King, B. (1984). Professional development courses in distance education.


Wilson, M. S. (2001). Cultural considerations in online instruction and learning. Distance

education, 22(1), 52-64,

Wright, C., & Conroy, C. (1988). Preparing CBI print-based support materials: an information/

instructional design perspective. Distance Education, 9(1), 84-94.

Xiao, J. (2012). Tutor’s influence on distance language students’ learning motivation: voice from

learners and tutors. Distance Education, 33(3), 365-380.

Yasmin, Dr. (2013). Application of the classification tree model in predicting learner dropout


105

behavior in open and distance learning. Distance Education, 34(2), 218-231.

Yildiz, S., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2003). Exploring electronic forum participation and interaction

by efl speakers in two web-based graduate-level courses. Distance Education, 24(2), 175-

193.

Youngblood, P., Trede, F., & Corpo, S. D. (2001). Facilitating online learning: a descriptive


ZajkowskiDale, M. E. (1993). Business students learning at a distance: one form of pre-

enrollment counseling and its effect on retention. Distance Education, 14(2), 331-353.

Zembylas, M. (2008). Adult leaners’ emotions in online learning. Distance Education, 29(1),

71-87.

Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2007). Listening for silence in text-based, online encounter.



106

Appendix C

Feedback Content, topics and Categories Present in Related Articles from 1980-2013

Authors and Years of

the Articles

Feedback Content

Example Topics Categories

Akbulut, Y., Kuzu,

A., Latchem, C., &

Odabasi, F. (2007)

“Authors expressed that it

is important to provide

extrinsic feedback”.

External feedback Other

Alexander, J. W.,

Polyakova-Norwood,

V., Johnston, L. W.,

Christensen, P., &

Loquist, R. S. (2003)

“The faculty serve as

facilitators and leaders to

provide feedback to

students”

Feedback from tutor Sources

Alvino, S., Asensio-

Perez, J. I.,

Dimitriadis, Y., &

Hernandez-Leo, D.

(2009)

“An interview was used to

collect teacher’s

feedback”

Method to collect

feedback

Other

Amarsaikhan, D.,

Lkhagvasuren, T.,

Oyun, S., &

Batchuluun, B.

(2007)

“Insufficient feedback is a

common flaw in medical

trials”

Only mention

feedback

Other

Amundsen, C. L., & “Telephone feedback was Method to deliver Technology


107

Bernard, R. M.

(1989)

incorporated as a support

element in distance

education programs”.

“Quality of feedback to

students varies among

makers.”

feedback.

Quality problem

and Media

Challenge

Andrade, M. S., &

Bunker, E. L. (2009)

“Assessment feedback

helps learners review their

progress and provide

meaningful interaction”.

“Feedback from tutors has

been proven effectively in

distance learning”.

Assessment feedback

Feedback from tutor

Other

Sources

Andrews, J., &

Strain, J. (1985)

“Provide students with

consistent, objective

instructional feedback …

have rarely been able to

control the quality or turn-

around time of comment”

“Immediate feedback

enables students to

complete course more

quickly”.

Quality feedback

Immediate feedback

Computer support

Challenges

Other

Technology

and Media


108

“Computer-assisted

communication enhanced

teacher and learner

interaction”.

Bahlman, G. W., &

Robertshaw, M.

(1989)

“Feedback from students

indicated …”

Feedback from

students

Sources

Balasubramanian,

K., Thamizoli, P.,

Umar, A., &

Kanwar, A. (2010)

“Participants’ feedback

has encouraged

developing a learning

management system for

mobile phones”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Baran, E., & Correia,

A. (2009)

“Text-based information

lacks immediate

instructors’ verbal

feedback”.

Immediate feedback Other

Bates, A. W. (1997)

“Newer technologies

(World Wide Web), which

including computer

conferencing provide

better quality feedback,”

Technology Technology

and Media

Bawane, J., & “The instructor’s social Feedback from Sources


109

Spector, J. M. (2009)

role involves creating a

friendly environment …,

and provide effective

feedback to motivate

students”.

instructor

Beckett, G. H.,

Amaro-Jimenez, C.,

& Beckett, K. S.

(2010)

“International students

were unfamiliar with

American ways of giving

feedback”

Cultural problems Challenge

Beckmann, E. A.

(2010)

“Since the postal service

is unreliable, … (student

responds to request

feedback)”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Belawati, T. (1998)

“Feedback support

distance education

systems”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Beldarrain, Y.

(2006)

“The 21st-century learner

wants to stay connected to

peers and receive prompt

feedback from the

instructor”.

“Instructor is required to

Feedback from peer

Feedback from

instructor

Technologies used

Sources

Technology

and Media


110

provide personalized

feedback via phone calls

and emails”.

Benson, R., & Rye,

O. (1996)

“Students receive

response by telephone

from their supervisor”.

Telephone used to

deliver feedback

Technology

and Media

Benson, R., &

Samarawickrema, G.

(2009)

“The view is supported by

the idea of structure as

including activities with

automatic feedback

programmed …”.

Automatic feedback Other

Bernard, R., Abrami,

P., Lou, Y., &

Borokbovski, E.

(2004)

“Haughey and Anderson

(1998) suggest instructors

collecting summative

feedback”.

Summative feedback Other

Bernard, R. M.,

Brauer, A., Abrami,

P. C., & Surkes, M.

(2004)

“Timely feedback serves

as interaction with an

instructor and other

students”.

“Students needed more

help and feedback from

the instructor”.

Timely feedback

Feedback from

instructor

Other

Sources


111

Bernard, R. M., & de

Rubalcava, B. R.

(2000)

“Distance education relies

on learning material

accompanied by minimal

feedback …”.

Minimal feedback Other

Bernt, F. M., &

Bugbee Jr, A. C.

(1993)

“Adult learners may need

more evaluative

feedback”.

Evaluative feedback Other

Berry, J., & O’Shea,

T. (1984)

“Students got feedback on

their quality of the project

and notes on any obvious

pitfalls”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Bethel, E. C., &

Bernard, R. M.

(2010)

“Interaction led to

effective learning only if

the developers gain

formative feedback”.

Formative feedback Other

Beuchot, A., &

Bullen, M. (2005)

“Interactivity requires

messages, while reactivity

can be assimilated to one-

way feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Biner, P., Barone,

N., Welsh, K., &

Dean, R. (1997)

“Negative student

feedback help to quickly

identify and modify

Feedback from

students

Sources


112

programmed

components”.

Bishop, A. (2002)

“The tutors were generally

supportive and provided

prompt feedback and

responses to questions”.


Bjorck, U. (2002)

“Students exchange

feedback that is given the

discussion list”.

Feedback from peers Sources

Bollettino, V., &

Bruderlein, C.

(2008)

“Preliminary feedback

from interviews suggests

that other factors account

for low completion rates”.

Preliminary feedback Other

Bolliger, D. U., &

Halupa, C. (2011)

“Researcher reported that

online learners uncounted

confusing instructor

feedback which caused

anxiety”.

Quality of feedback Challenge

Bolliger, D. U., &

Shepherd, C. E.

(2010)

“Others use ePortfolios to

facilitate student

collaboration”.

“Authors stated that the

use of peer and instructor

Technology

Feedback from

instructor and peers

Technologies

and Media

Sources


113

feedback allowed for

enhanced reflection and

deeper learning

outcomes”.

Bolliger, D. U., &

Wasilik, O. (2009)

“Barriers to online

learning include delays in

feedback from

instructors”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources

Bolton, G. (1986)

“It is important to raise

our sights from the

immense detail of

feedback techniques, and

preparation of course

materials”.

Quality of feedback Challenges

Bonk, C. J., &

Zhang, K. (2006)

“One of learning activity

for online course is

providing feedback on

papers”.

Method used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Borokhovski, E.,

Tamim, R., Bernard,

R. M., Abrami, P. C.,

& Sokolovskaya, A.

(2012)

“Motivational feedback

used to encourage

interpersonal exchange”.

Motivational feedback Other


114

Borup, J., West, R.

E., & Graham, C. R.

(2013)

“Asian students prefer

audio feedback to text”.

Audio used to deliver

feedback

Technology

and Media

Boshier, R., Mohapi,

M., Moulton, G.,

Qayyum, A.,

Sadownik, L., &

Wilson, M. (1997)

“ …，there was no

potential for students to

provide feedback”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Bossu, C., Bull, D.,

& Brown, M. (2012)

“The participants will

provide feedback on

findings of the survey …”.


Boucher, T. A., &

Barron, M. H. (1986)

“Students taking the

computer-marked course

with prescriptive feedback

experienced marginal

gains …”.

Prescriptive feedback Other

Bowser, D., & Race,

K. (1991)

“The aim of the

questionnaire is to gain

feedback.”

Method to gain

feedback

Other

Brace-Govan, J., & “Journal entries and staff Feedback from journal Sources


115

Clulow, V. (2000)

commentary could give

students important

feedback on developing

skill”.

entries and staff

commentary

Brew, A., & Wright,

T. (1990)


can help the teacher to see

if everyone is taking part

in discussion”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Broadbridge, A., &

Davies, K. (1993)

“Participants complained

there were little or no

feedback”

Importance of

feedback

Other

Brown, S., &

Nathenson, M.

(1981)

“Evaluation team

collected feedback from

students on all aspects of

the course”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Bruno, J. E., &

Pedroza, H. A.

(1994)

“A list of basic questions

was used in order to get

feedback from

participating subjects”.

Feedback from other

subjects

Sources

Burke, C., Lundin,

R., & Daunt, C.

(1997)

“Online feedback from

students at the end of each

videoconference …”.

Feedback from

students

Sources


116

Bynner, J. (1986)

“Students receive

feedback from tutor on

their mastering of the

skill”.


Catchpole, M.

(1986)

“Getting immediate

feedback can help

students to link new

materials to their previous

knowledge base”.

“Feedback makes students

learn more”

Immediate feedback

Importance of

feedback

Other

Chabon, S. S., Cain,

R. E., & Lee-

Wilkerson, D. (2001)

“The instructors

monitored the

discussions …, and

provided respectful

feedback”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources

Chen, T., Bennett,

S., & Maton, K.

(2008)

“Most students see the

lack of interaction and

immediate feedback as

impediments of effective

learning”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Cheung, D. (1998)

“Students provide the

course team with

Feedback from

students

Sources


117

diagnostic feedback”.

“Tutors provide feedback

to lecturers for

improvement of course”.

Feedback from tutor

Childress, M. D.,

Braswell, R. (2006)

“The use of Second Life

adds a visual feedback

element that serves to

enhance the interaction”.

Software to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Chinnappan, M.

(2006)

“Forum was used to

provide constructive

feedback”.

Method to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Cho, M., & Shen, D.

(2013)

“Online teachers should

provide positive feedback

to students”.

Feedback from

teachers

Sources

Clayton, D., &

Arger, G. (1989)

“Teacher’s main

expectation was to

provide immediate

feedback”.

Immediate feedback

Feedback from

teachers

Other

Sources

Coldeway, D. O., &

Spencer, R. E.

(1982)

“Tutors help students

make progress by

providing immediate

feedback”.

“Telephone can be used to

Feedback from tutors

Telephone used to

deliver feedback

Sources

Technologies

and Media


118

provide immediate

feedback”.

Compton, L., Davis,

N., & Correia, A.

(2010)

“Many participants

expressed worries that the

delay in teacher feedback

would affect the learning

process”.

Feedback from

teacher

Importance of

immediate feedback

Sources

Coniam, D. (1993)

“Author mentioned audio

recorded feedback and

instant feedback to help

students learning”.

Different feedback Other

Conrad, D. (2002)

“A student prefers to

channel her feedback to

colleagues”.


Correia, A., Davis,

N. (2008)

“Not everyone felt

comfortable with

anonymous course

feedback”.

Cresswell, R., &

Hobson, P. (1996)

“Attention has been paid

to the relevance of student

feedback in monitoring

tertiary performance”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Cropley, A. J., & “Effects of feedback in Students’ Other


119

Kahl, T. N. (1983)

DE strongly depend on

learners’ maturity, far-

sightedness, internal

motivation, and ability to

plan”.

characteristics

Cross, R. F. (1996)

“Verbal feedback was

obtained via casual

interactions with the

students”.

Verbal feedback Other

Daniel, J. S., &

Stroud, M. A. (1981)

“Students are happier

when learning system

includes consistent

feedback”.


Darabi, A., & Jin, L.

(2013)

“Preservice teachers were

prompted to provide

feedback on …”.

Feedback from

teachers

Sources

Darabi, A. A.,

Silorski, E. G., &

Harvey, R. B. (2006)

“One member writes a

first draft and sends it to

the next member for their

feedback”.


Dean, A. M., &

Webster, L. (2000)

“The feedback provided at

the end of the simulation

enhanced my



120

performance”.

Dennen, V. P.,

Darabi, A. A., &

Smith, L. J. (2007)

“Instructor needs to

provide feedback on

assignments in a timely

manner”.

Feedback from

instructor

Importance of

immediate feedback

Sources

Dickey, M. D.

(2003)

“The advantage of having

a synchronous chat tool is

that it affords learners

immediate feedback”.

Chat tool used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Dillenbourg, P.

(2008)

“Teacher provide

feedback to ask students

to clarify the relationships

they have expressed,

and …”.

Feedback from

teachers

Sources

Dillon, C. L.,

Gunawardena, C. N.,

& Parker, R. (1992)

“Some student indicated

that the instructor did not

provide the remote

students with the same

materials as the campus

students”,

Feedback from

instructor

Teachers’

responsibilities

Sources

Ding, X. (1994)

“Getting feedback from

face-to-face tutors in

conventional class”.



121

Dobrovolny, J.

(2006)

“Another difficult aspect

of developing effective

feedback is including …,

and the learners’ prior

experiences”.

Learners

characteristics

Other

Donald, C., Blake,

A., Girault, I., Datt,

A., & Ramsay, E.

(2009)

“Each member of the

community shares ideas,

provide critical

feedback …”.


Dray, B. J.,

Lowenthal, P. R.,

Miszkiewicz, M. J.,

Ruiz-Primo, M. A.,

& Marczynski, K.

(2011)

One question to measure

learners’ characteristics is

if they are good at giving

constructive and proactive

feedback to others.

Feedback from

learners

Sources

Duignan, P. A., &

Teather, D. C. B.

(1985)

“There is no instant

feedback to help clear the

air and clarify meanings”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Dunbar, R. (1991)

“In Indonesia, course

writers are not involved in

Cultural difference Challenges


122

in any of the feedback

processes”.

Dymock, D., &

Hobson, P. (1998)

“Voicemail proved a very

useful way of providing

feedback to students”.

Voicemail used to

delivered feedback

Technologies

and Media

Earl, K. (2013)

“Grade achievement and

assignment feedback may

prompt students to ask

questions”.

“Maintaining students’

confidence and trust …

can be supported by

timeliness and quality of

feedback”.

Assignment feedback

Feedback quality

Other

Challenges

Eastmond, D. V.

(1994)

“Timely feedback is

thought to be an important

advantage of computer

conferencing”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Edwards, M., Perry,

B., & Janzen, K.

(2011)

“Lack of feedback from

instructors, …， is one of

the major problems

learners are faced with in

online instruction”.

Importance of

feedback

Other


123

Eisenberg, E., &

Dowsett, T. (1990)

“More frequent feedback

can make more

staff/students contact to

assess progress”.

Frequent feedback Other

Falck, A. K.,

Kronlund, H. T.,

Kynaslahti, H.,

Salminen, J., &

Salonen, M. (1997)

“Documents,

including …, examination

results and answers to

feedback questionnaires

were collected”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Ferman, T., & Page,

M. (2000)

“An important phase in

the project was for the

participants to learn from

and act on the evaluation

feedback”.

“Student feedback

improves lecturer’s

teaching skills”.

Evaluative feedback

Feedback from

students

Other

Sources

Fields, B. A. (1989)

“Feedback is one of the

five elements regarded as

essential to effective

training aimed at changing

teachers’ classroom

Feedback to teachers Sources


124

instructional behavior”.

Field, J. (1995)

“Instant feedback was

offered in much-parodied

movement”.

Instant feedback Other

Finkel, A. (1985)

“The feedback that

students receive on their

essays is extremely

important in a distance

course in history”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Fulcher, G., & Lock,

D. (1999)

“The tutor provides

appropriate feedback to

learners”.


Furnborough, C.

(2012)

“Feedback strategically

served as a learning tool”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Furnborough, C., &

Truman, M. (2009)

“Formative feedback

emphasizes the learning

process …”.

“External feedback is

comments …”.

“Internal feedback is

generated …”.

Formative feedback

External feedback

Internal feedback

Other

Garland, M. R. “Tutor provides written Feedback from tutor Sources


125

(1993)

feedback and telephone

support”.

“The timeliness and

quality of feedback on

assignment was also

problematic in some

cases”.


Garrison, D. R.

(1985)

“In computer-based

instruction, feedback can

be immediate and

regular”.

Computer used to

delivered feedback

Technologies

and Media

Garrison, D. R.

(1987)

“The speed and regularity

of feedback, … are

variables that should be

studied in method of

distance delivery”.

Speed feedback Other

Garrison, D. R.

(1993)

“A behavioral approach

provides simple feedback,

while a cognitive

approach may provide

explanatory feedback”.

Explanatory feedback

Simple feedback

Other

Garrison, D. R.

(1995)

“Examples and arguments

are used to provide

Method to provide

feedback

Technologies

and Media


126

feedback”.

Gee, T. W. (1991)

“Positive, quick feedback

is a must in the use of

distance education

network”.

Quick feedback Other

Gillies, D. (2008)

“Listening to feedback

was often disengaging”.

Feedback delivered by

audio or video

Technologies

and Media

Goodfellow, R., Lea,

M., Gonzalez, F., &

Mason, R. (2001)

“Academic conventions

may be constructed over

the question of feedback”.

Feedback used for

interaction

Functions

Goodyear, P., &

Ellis, R. A. (2008)

“Some feedback come

from self-monitoring of

results, while some come

via other people

(teachers)”.

Internal feedback

Feedback from

teachers

Other

Sources

Goyen, M., &

Roome, W. (1998)

“Feedback from end of

semester evaluations”.


Graham, M., &

Scarborough, H.

(2001)

“Informal feedback from

email and telephone

conversations …”.

Informal feedback

Email and telephone

used to deliver

feedback

Other

Technologies

and Media


127

Green, N. C. (2006)

“The school of distance

education teachers guided

Louise by giving

feedback”.

Feedback from

teachers

Sources

Gregory, J., &

Salmon, G. (2013)

“Feedback from many

participants shares skills,

knowledge, and

resources”.


Griffiths, D.,

Beauvior, P., Liber,

O., & Barrett-

Baxendale, M.

(2009)

“The Reload LD team

provided extensive

informal feedback, …”.

Informal feedback Other

Guasch, T., Espasa,

A., Alvarez, M., &

Kirschner, P. (2013)

“Two specific support

mechanisms that can be

used are teacher feedback

and peer feedback”.

Feedback from

teacher

Feedback from peer

Sources

Gunawardena, C. N.,

Ortegano-Layne, L.,

Carabajal, K.,

Frechette, C.,

Lindemann, K., &

“The community provides

the opportunity for

participants to interact,

receive feedback, and

learn and grow together”.



128

Jennings, B. (2006)

Gunawardena, C. N.,

Nolla, A. C., Wilson,

P. L., Lopez-Islas, J.

R., Ramirez-Angel,

N., &

Megchen-Alpizar, R.

M. (2001)

“Lack of feedback makes

online conferences

difficult”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Hagel, P., & Shaw,

R. N. (2006)

“The engagement benefits

of web-based study are

likely to be greater when

its capacity for feedback

exploited more

effectively”.

Web-based deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Halabi, A. K.,

Tuovinen, J. E., &

Smyrnios, K. X.

(2000)

“Computer-aided

instruction provide

automatic feedback for

individual learners”.

Computer deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Hall, D., & Knox, J.

(2009)

“Marker feedback is less

common in the literature”.

Marker feedback Other


129

Halverson, L. R.,

Graham, C. R.,

Spring, K. J., &

Drysdale, J. S.

(2012)

“Technology supported

good feedback practice”.

Technology Technologies

and Media

Hannum, W. H.,

Irvin, M. J., Lei, P.,

& Farmer, T. W.

(2008)

“Students in successful

programs were well

supported by frequent

feedback”.


Harden, T., Barnard,

I., & Hong, E.

(1991)

“Communication and

feedback to students may

help to improve students’

writing ability”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Harley, M. F. (1985)

“Regular and effective

feedback to the teacher is

received both from the

parent and the child”.

Feedback from parent

and child

Sources

Harman, C., &

Dorman, M. (1998)

“External students might

benefit from an interactive

environment, with access

Only mention

feedback

Feedback from

Other

Sources


130

to immediate feedback

and reinforcement both

from the teacher and

student peers”.

teacher and peers

Hase, S., & Saenger,

H. (1997)

“Videomail-a

personalized approach to

providing feedback on

assessment to distance

learners”.

Videomail used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Hawkins, A.,

Graham, C. R.,

Sudweeks, R. R., &

Barbour, M. K.

(2013)

“Quality of interaction

was subdivided into three

constructs representing

feedback, procedural, and

social interaction”.


Hayford, J. (1996)

“Australian students who

have access to a computer

and modem could send

assignments and receive

feedback”.

Computer used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Hedberg, J., & Ping,

L. C. (2004)

“The new e-learning

technologies may

diminish the need to have

Technology improve

learning

Technologies

and Media


131

repetitious feedback”.

Henderson, L., &

Putt, I. (1993)

“Feedback is used to solve

problems”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Herrington, J.,

Reeves, T. C., &

Oliver, R. (2006)

“Distance education

literature was studied to

tease out the effects of

individual variables:

feedback, delivery mode,

media, etc.”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Hiemstra, A.,

Hummel, H., & Sint,

M. (1996)

“Audio worked as

information, instruction,

or feedback”.


feedback

Technologies

and Media

Higgins, K., &

Harreveld, R. E.

(2013)

“Authors were reminded

that professional

development programs

require careful

planning …, (and) tailored

feedback processes.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Hilton III, J. L.,

Graham, C., Rich, P.,

& Wiley, D. (2010)

“Learners at a distance

could receive feedback

from the instructor”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources


132

Hockings, C., Brett,

P., & Terentjevs, M.

(2012)

“User review and

evaluation of the video

clips in the pre-release

stage provided helpful

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Hockridge, D.

(2013)

“In distance education,

teaching practice is

designed for individual

communication, feedback

and modeling”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Holmberg, B. (1981)

“Feedback served to

provide information,

correction, and

comments”.

Feedback roles Roles

Holmber, R. G., &

Bakshi, T. S. (1982)

“In conventional

laboratories, one of

potential advantages is

providing immediate

feedback”.

Comparison of

feedback in DE and

CE

Other

Holt, D., Petzall, S.,

& Viljoen, J. (1990)

“Group members can give

support and encourage

each other when they



133

receive assignment

feedback”.

Holt, D. M., &

Thompson, D. J.

(1998)

“New technology

developments are more

quickly and strongly

moved into the worlds of

teaching and learning, and

more continuously

reviewed ad revised in

response to teacher and

student feedback”.

Technology improved

and deliver teacher

and student feedback

Technologies

and Media

Holt, M. D. (1993)

“MBA study documentary

sources include student

assignment submissions

and assessor feedback”.

Feedback from

assessor

Sources

Hosie, P. (1988)

“Instruction delivered by

satellite has great potential

for promoting diversity of

instructional delivery”.

Satellite used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Hough, M. (1984)

“Using feedback to guide

adult learning activities”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Howard, D. C.

(1985)

“Students are likely to

confront obstacles to

Obstacles

Importance of

Challenges

Other


134

learning because of

delayed feedback”.

immediate feedback

Howland, J. L., &

Moore, J. L. (2002)

“Self-reliance students

expected to get structure

and continuous feedback”.

“Some students expect


Different kinds of

feedback

Other

Hurd, S. (2006)

“Tutor’s feedback is

considered more

important than any other

tutor role”.

Feedback from tutor

Importance of tutor

feedback

Sources

Inglis, A. (1999)

“Email has been used

extensively to provide

assignment feedback”.

Email used to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Irlbeck, S., Kays, E.,

Jones, D., & Sims,

R. (2006)

“The role of the teacher

moves from providing

content to providing

feedback”.

Tutor feedback Sources

Jackson, L. C.,

Jackson, A. C., &

Chambers, D. (2013)

“Students observe their

teacher facilitating the

inquiry process and giving

feedback”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

James, R., & Beattie, “Reduction in feedback Feedback from Sources


135

K. (1996)

from students is

dissatisfying and

disconcerting to the extent

that it undermines

teaching performance”.

student

Importance of

feedback

Other

Jamtsho, S., &

Bullen, M. (2007)

“One serious area of

concern for the students

was the turnaround of

assignments with

appropriate feedback from

the tutors”.

Immediate feedback


Other

Sources

Jegede, O. J. (1994)

“70% of subjects agreed

to concentrated on

systems for the provision

of feedback to student”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Jegede, O., Taplin,

M., Fan, R. Y. K.,

Chan, M. S. C., &

Yum, J. (1999)

“People with high need

for achievement have a

strong desire for

performance feedback”.

Performance feedback Other

Jelfs, A.,

Richardson, J. T. E.,

& Price, L. (2009)

“The tutor’s role is to

mark assignments with

detailed formative



136

feedback”.

Jennings, P. J., &

Atkinson, R. J.

(1982)

“Action on feedback from

students has been

facilitated by the small

scale of the courses”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Jonassen, D.,

Prevish, T., Christy,

D., & Stavrulaki, E.

(1999)

“Students should be

expected to grade and

provide feedback to other

students”.


Joughin, G., &

Johnston, S. (1994)

“The teacher received

positive informal feedback

from campus students”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Junor, L. (1992)

“Tape used to deliver

learning materials and

feedback”.

Tape used to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Kahl, T. N., &

Cropley, A. J. (1986)

“Inconsistent feedback

can raise students

anxiety”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Kanuka, H. (2002)

“Feedback from focus

group members in the

previous step helped to

revise the principles and



137

constructs of the

solution”.

Kanuka, H., &

Nocente, N. (2003)

“The computer generated

feedback was helpful”.

Feedback from

computer

Sources

Kaufman, D. (1984)

“Self-assessment

questions with feedback

will …”.

Internal feedback Other

Keegan, D. J. (1980)

“Feedback expanded form

of teaching by

correspondence with

feedback”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Kehrwald, B. (2008)

“A student expressed that

she is glad to give

feedback”.


Kelly, M. E. (1987)

“Students will provide

negative feedback when

materials and teaching

strategies are inadequate”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Kember, D. (1982)

“Isolated students who

meet with colleagues can

share their experiences,

and tutor receive

Feedback from peers

Feedback to tutors

Sources


138

considerable feedback

about problems”.

Kember, D. (1989)

“Students need more

prompt deliveries of

assignments and more

direct and explanatory

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Kember, D. (1994)

“Behaviorists need for

feedback in addition to

message transmission”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Kember, D., &

Mezger, R. (1990)


can help writers become

more open to innovative

and creative ideas”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Kennepohl, D., &

Last, A. M. (2000)

“Feedback from instructor

may be very slow”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources

Kim, C. (2008)

“The preservice teachers

were trained in advance to

provide strategic student

feedback via email”.

Email used to provide

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Kirkwood, A. (1998)

“Electronic submission

has been introduced with

Speed feedback Other


139

the aim of improving the

turnaround time for

feedback to learner”.

Kirschner, P.,

Meester, M.,

Middelbeek, E., &

Hermans, H. (1993)

“Constructive feedback is

often lacking in laboratory

work”.

Constructive feedback Other

Kirschner, P.,

Valcke, M. M. A., &

Vilsteren, P. v.

(1997)

“Students receive

feedback provided by the

system itself, the tutors

and the experts”.


and experts

Sources

Klingsieck, K. B.,

Fries, S., Horz, C., &

Hofer, M. (2012)

“The feedback

concentrated on the

learning strategies”

Feedback for learning

strategies

Sources

Kloeden, P. E., &

McDonald, R. J.

(1981)

“Student feedback

together with other data

can give useful

information on the process

of learning”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Knox, D. M. (1997)

“The visits also provide

the Melbourne lecture

with valuable feedback on

Only mention

feedback

Other


140

students’ progress”.

Koseoglu, S., &

Doering, A. (2011)

“Student feedback was

analyzed using the

constant comparison

method”.

Feedback from

student

Sources

Koshy, K., Bonato,

J., & Faasalaina, T.

(1994)

“Satellite tutorials are now

becoming more

extensively used for the

purpose of more rapid

feedback”.

Satellite used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Koszalka, T., &

Ganesan, R. (2004)

“The course management

systems allow developers

to use feedback

mechanisms to guide

learning”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Koszalka, T. A., &

Ntloedibe-Kuswani,

G. S. (2010)

“Each member of

community shares ideas

and provides critical

feedback”.


Kuboni, O. (2009)

“Tutors are expected to

moderate discussions…,

provide feedback on

learning activities”.

Tutors role Sources


141

Kuboni, O., &

Martin, A. (2004)

“Instructors collect post-

course informal, as well as

summative, feedback”.


Kuffner, H. (1984)

“Student receives a

detailed computer printed

letter as feedback”.

Print material as

method to deliver

feedback

Computer used

Technologies

and Media

Laaser, W. (1993)

“Students react very

positively, especially to

the immediate feedback

given to each step in their

learning”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Other

Lange, J. C. (1986)

“Computer models

provide instantaneous

feedback to student”.

Computer used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

LaPointe, D. K., &

Gunawardena, C. N.

(2004)

“The correlation was

strong when learners

received feedback from

classroom”.

Feedback from

classmates

Sources

Lappia, A., &

Lappia, A. (1989)

“Direct and constructive

feedback to an instructor

can be of assistance for

improving teaching

Direct and

constructive feedback

Feedback to instructor

Other

Sources


142

behaviors”.

Latchem, C. (2007)

“It is hard to provide any

feedback to support future

projects”.

Obstacle Challenges

Lawrence, B., &

Lentle-Keenan, S.

(2013)

“Web-based tools were

used to provide feedback

between teachers and

students”.

Web-based tools used

to deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Lehtinen, E. (2002)

“The students’ task was to

give feedback on how the

teachers presented in the

video cases could improve

their lessons”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Leong, P. (2011)

“Researchers found out

that a lack of immediate

feedback from the

instructor may cause

students’ frustration”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Other

Lester, N. C. (1993)

“Tutors would allow for

providing immediate

feedback”.


Li, N., Lee, K., &

Kember, D. (2000)

“Students indicated

actions to seek feedback



143

or ideas from others”.

Liao, L. (2006)

“Discussion between

students is a significant

difference from the

feedback of teachers”.

Difference of

feedback from peers

and teachers

Sources

Librero, F., Ramos,

A. J., Ranga, A. I.,

Trinona, J., &

Lambert, D. (2007)

“Immediate feedback is

encouraged wherever

possible”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Other

Lobry de Bruyn, L.

(2004)

“Difficulties may be

encountered since there is

no clear feedback to

indicate whether their

point is clear”.


Lockwood, F., &

Latchem, C. (2004)

“Training Impact Study

provides feedback on

training events”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Lou, Y. (2004)

“Students received prompt

individual feedback from

instructor on their work”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources

Luschei, T. F.,

Dimyati, S., &

“Feedback is one of

crucial elements of DE”.

Importance of

feedback

Other


144

Padmo, D. (2008)

Macdonald, J., &

Hills, L. (2005)

“Tutors are responsible

for providing detailed

formative feedback”.

Tutors’ responsibility Sources

Macdonald, J., &

Poniatowska, B.

(2011)

“The structure of VLE

choice intentions includes

assignment feedback”.

Assignment feedback Other

Macpherson, C., &

Smith, A. (1998)

“A broader study would

generate unique feedback

regarding author

perceptions”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Malbran, M, del C.,

& Villar, C. M.

(2001)

“The Monitor Triarchic

Test provides immediate

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Mann, C. C. (1998)

“All assignment are given

feedback either on audio

cassette or in written

form”.

“… invite feedback from

tutees on the quality of

feedback they receive”.


feedback

Quality of feedback

Technologies

and Media

Challenges


145

Marland, P.,

Patching, W., & Putt,

I. (1992)

“Practice interviews were

videotaped to be analyzed

and corrective feedback

provided”.

Corrective feedback Other

Marland, P. W., &

Store, R. E. (1982)

“Feedback increases the

subject’s intentional

learning”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Marland, P.,

Patching, W., Putt,

P., & Store, R.

(1984)

“It is profitable to

examine the frequency of

feedback”.

Frequency feedback Other

Marsden, R. (1996)

“With written words,

students can understand

content without

feedback”. (Feedback’s

negative aspect)

Only mention

feedback

Other

Martens, R.,

Bastiaens, T., &

Kirschner, P. A.

(2007)

“The coach provides

students with feedback”.

Feedback from coach Sources

Martens, R. L.,

Valcke, M. M. A.,

“Questions with feedback

were used in an interactive

Only mention

feedback

Other


146

Portier, S. J., Weges,

H. G., & Poelmans,

P. H. A. G. (1997)

learning environments”.

Masterman, E.,

Jameson, J., &

Walker, S. (2009)

“Students need more

controlled tasks … for the

teacher to check their

work and provide

feedback”.

Feedback from

teacher

Sources

McAlpine, I. (2000)

“Students provide

feedback on an online

questionnaire”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

McConnell, D.

(2002)

“The work of the group

allows members to re-

draft their stories based on

members’ feedback”.


McDonald, R.,

Sansom, D., &

White, M. (1981)

“Slow assignment

feedback makes students

enroll in the two-semester

option”.

Assignment feedback Other

McGill, T. J., Volet,

S. E., & Hobbs, V. J.

(1997)

“Lack of immediate

feedback makes it

impossible to provide

Importance of

feedback

Other


147

early appropriate

assistance”.

McLinden, M.,

McCall, S., Hinton,

D., & Weston, A.

(2006)

“An anonymous

questionnaire was used to

collect feedback from the

participants”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

McLoughlin, C.

(2001)

“The teacher should

consider what forms of

feedback will be most

motivating for students”.

Feedback from

teacher

Sources

McLoughlin, C.

(2002)

“Effective support

requires interaction and

extension of ideas with

feedback from peers and

mentors”.

Feedback from peers

and mentors

Sources

McLoughlin, C., &

Oliver, R. (1998)

“Telephone, computer and

fax can be used to provide


Technology used to

provide feedback

Technologies

and Media

Meintjes, L. J.

(1987)


is usually in response to

tutor’s letters”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Menchaca, M. P., & “Students comments Importance of Other


148

Bekele, T. A. (2008)

immediate feedback is

crucial”.

“Students were more

likely to comment on each

other’s work”.

“Faculty plays a major

role in providing

feedback”.

immediate feedback

Feedback from peers

Faculty role

Sources

Merrill, M. D., &

Gilbert, C. G. (2008)

“Application is effective

only when learners

receive corrective

feedback”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Miao, Y., van der

Klink, M., Boon, J.,

Sloep, P., & koper,

R. (2009)

“Candidates further

improve assignment

outcomes and even

require elaborate

feedback”.

Elaborate feedback Other

Mihkelson, A., &

Klease, G. (1993)

“Feedback provide

guidance and motivation

to students”.

Motivation Functions

Milne, H. J. O.

(1987)

“Mail and telephone were

used to deliver feedback

in personalized system of

Technologies used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media


149

instruction”.

Moore, M. G. (1981)

“Teacher’s delicate task is

to provide feedback at the

right moment”.

Feedback form

teachers

Teacher’s role

Sources

Moore, M. G. (1987)

“Feedback can be

received and processed by

the computer”.

Computer used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Morgan, A. (1984)

“Use of feedback to

improve course

presentation”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Morgan, C. J.,

Dingsdag, D., &

Saenger, H. (1998)

“The respondents

developed learning and

essay writing strategies

relying on feedback from

previous efforts”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Morgan, C. K., &

Tam, M. (1999)

“Insufficient feedback on

assignment is one of

barriers”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Motteram, G., &

Forrester, G. (2005)

“The rapidity of electronic

communication has raised

student expectations of

getting fast feedback from

tutors”.

Electronic

communication helps

provide feedback


Technologies

and Media

Sources


150

Muilenburg, L. Y., &

Berge, Z. L. (2005)

“One barrier for students

is the lack of timely

feedback from the

instructor”.

Barrier of students Challenges

Murphy, A. (2013)

“The respondents were

given an open comment

field to provide additional

feedback”.

Feedback from

respondents

Sources

Murphy, K. L., &

Cifuentes, L. (2001)

“Students assessed their

own learning gains

through peer and

instructor feedback using

tools”.

Feedback from peer

and instructor

Sources

Murphy, K. L.,

Mahoney, S. E.,

Chen, C., Mendoza-

Diaz, N. V., & Yang,

X. (2005)

“Coaching may be

unsolicited when the

coach provides feedback”.

Feedback role Roles

Murphy, L. M.,

Shelley, M. A.,

White, C. J., &

Baumann, U. (2011)

“Provided feedback was

rated highly”.

“Students and tutors

agreed that it should

Importance of

feedback

Individual feedback

Feedback from

Other

Sources


151

provide individualized

feedback on assignments”.

“Tutor should receive

students feedback and

provide prompt

feedback”.

students and tutors

Naidu, S. (1994)

“It is not easy to provide

discussion and immediate

and direct feedback in DE

contexts compared to

conventional class”

Comparison of DE

and CE

Other

Naidu, S. (1997)

“The course team sought

feedback from students to

improve the design of

electronic teaching”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Naidu, S., &

Bernard, R. M.

(1992)

“The presence of feedback

is an important addition to

the use of inserted

questions in text”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Nandi, D., Hamilton,

M., & Harland, J.

(2012)

“The main motivator for

participation in online

discussion forums is to

seek feedback from

Feedback from

instructor

Sources


152

instructors”.

Nichols, M. (2010)

“The lack of timely

feedback and feeling of

isolation is the reason for

students dropping out”.

Dropping out problem Challenges

Nielsen, H. D.

(1997)

“Delayed feedback and

flawed feedback influence

the students’ ability to use

past results”.

Delayed feedback Other

Nikoi, S., &

Armellini, A. (2012)

“Feedback can be

extremely useful to inform

ongoing design and

development of OER”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Nyirenda, J. E.

(1983)

“Providing the learner

with a chance to obtain

feedback is a

consideration for

developing learning

materials”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Nyirenda, J. E.

(1989)

“Print is main medium of

instruction”.

Print text and postal

system used to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Oliver, K., Kellogg, “One recommendation for Feedback from peers Sources


153

S., Townsend, L., &

Brady, K. (2010)

better supporting teachers

in course development is

to provide designers with

comprehensive feedback

from peers and experts”.

and experts

Oliver, K., Osborne,

J., & Brady, K.

(2009)

“Students expect online

instructors to provide


“It is critical for teachers

to monitor student

progress and provide

timely feedback”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Teachers’ role

Other

Sources

Oliver, R. (1999)

“Cognitive support

offered by Web FAQ

includes access to direct

feedback on problems and

tasks and to access to

feedback from other

learners’ difficulties”.

Interaction Functions

Orrill, C. H. (2002)

“Positive feedback was

given when a student

offered a summary”.

Positive feedback Other

Ostman, R. E., & “Educational technology Drop out problem Challenges


154

Wagner, G. A.

(1987)

cannot be thought of so

much as causes of

dropout”.

Otoole, S. (1999)

“Motivation and regular

feedback which is timely

and detailed is directly

attributed to regular

student-teacher contact”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Painte, C., Coffin,

C., & Hewings, A.

(2003)

“Feedback on student

contributions was useful

to refine the students’

understandings”.

Improvement Functions

Panda, S. K. (1992)

“Most of the students and

teachers …, opined

favorably for the use of

necessity for continuous

feedback through

assignments”.

Continuous feedback

Importance of

feedback

Other

Paulus, T. M. (2005)

“One member writing a

first draft and sending it to

the next member for their

feedback or

development”.



155

Paz Dennen, V.

(2005)

“Students were asked to

read and comment on peer

work”.

“The instructor feedback

plays an important part in

students’ motivation to

participate in courses”.

Feedback from peers

Instructor feedback

Sources

Paz Dennen, V., &

Wieland, K. (2007)

“The instructor provided

feedback to student via

private email”.


feedback

Technologies

and Media

Persico, D., Pozzi,

F., & Sarti, L. (2010)

“Outcomes of the field

test are based on feedback

from the tutors who used

the model”.

Feedback from tutors Sources

Peruniak, G. (1983)

“Positive feedback in the

subject would help to

motivate to improve

assignment”.


Phelan, L. (2012)

“When the model was

tested in online tutor’s

training situations,

positive feedback was

provided”.

Only mention

feedback

Other


156

Philip, R., &

Nicholls, J. (2007)

“Insufficient feedback is

an ongoing complaint

from many students,

particularly in distance

courses”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Phillips, C. (1990)

“Students could have

ready access to feedback

from their peers and from

the teaching staff”.

Feedback from peers

and teaching staff

Sources

Pincas, A. (2001)

“Assessment practice

provides timely,

constructive feedback that

results in congruence

between course aims and

learning outcomes”.

Timely feedback

Constructive feedback

Other

Pittenger, A., &

Doering, A. (2010)

“Satisfaction facilitated by

successfully fostering

attention, relevance, and

confidence with timely

instructor feedback”.

Timely feedback

Instructor feedback

Other

Sources

Pittenger, A. L., &

Olson-Kellogg, B.

(2011)

“Feedback provision

support student not to

become frustrated and

Support

Drop out problem

Functions

Challenges


157

give up”.

Porras-Hernandez, L.

H. (2000)

“Self-oriented feedback

was identified as one of

three common features in

spite of theoretical

orientations”.

Self-oriented feedback Other

Portier, S. J.,

Hermans, H. J. H.,

Valcke, M. M. A., &

van den Bosch, H.

M. J. (1997)

“Students express a need

for individual feedback

from their teacher”.

Individual feedback Other

Potter, C., & Naidoo,

G. (2009)

“Classroom-based contact

with teachers provided

opportunities for critical

reflection as well as

feedback to the project

team”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Potter, C., & Naidoo,

G. (2006)

“School-based contact

with teachers would

provide one level of

reflection and feedback”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Pugh, H. L.,

Parchman, S. W., &

“Many of the sites

surveyed reported


feedback

Technologies

and Media


158

Simpson, H. (1992)

problems with telephone,

audio feedback, …”.

Ramos, F., Taju, G.,

& Canuto, L. (2011)

“Feedback fails to address

the needs of the distance

learner”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Rassmussen, K. L.,

Nichols, J. C., &

Ferguson, F. (2006)

“Providing feedback

prompts understanding

and encourages

participants”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Redding, R. E.

(1995)

“Feedback is given to

student by experienced

instructors”.

Feedback from

instructors

Sources

Renner, W. (1995)

“Immediate feedback

encouraged engagement in

the subject matter”.

Reinforcement Functions

Rennie, F. (2003)

“Students’ feedback

indicates telephone

instruction is ideal for use

in combination with other

formats”.

Telephone used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Reushle, S. E. (1995)

“Information may be

provided by some form of

feedback mechanism”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other


159

Richter, T., &

McPherson, M.

(2012)

“Literacy is a skill to

better control direct

feedback by people”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Roberts, D. (1984)

“Students drop out

because of lacking swift

feedback”.

Drop out problem Challenges

Roberts, D. (1996)

“The use of telephone and

audio-cassettes to provide

feedback has been

championed by

researchers”.

“Three elements of good

feedback mentioned most

frequently”.

“Half of the students

believe that all students

look for the same kind of

feedback, while ten

mentioned that feedback

needs vary”.

Telephone and audio-

cassettes used to

deliver feedback

Standard of good

feedback

Individual feedback

Technologies

and Media

Roberts, D. W.

(1998)

“The ambivalence in the

feedback from students

Feedback from

students

Sources


160

reflects …”.

Roberts, D., Boyton,

B., Buete, S., &

Dawson, D. (1991)

“The academic staff

provided quality feedback

with assignments”.

“Assignment feedback is

recognized as being

vitally important”.

Quality of feedback

Assignment feedback

Challenges

Other

Roberts, D. W.,

Jackson, K.,

Osborne, J., & Vive,

A. S. (1994)

“The instructional

designer might address

how to provide for

effective and constructive

feedback”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Roberts, N., &

Vanska, R. (2011)

“Learners received

immediate feedback on

practice exercise”.

Immediate feedback Other

Robertson, B. (1987)

“Instructor depends on

audio signals and

questioning to get

feedback form students”.

Audio signal used to

deliver feedback

Feedback from

students

Technologies

and Media

Robinson, B. (1999)

“Visiting teachers provide

feedback to provincial and

district coordinating

committees”.

Feedback from

visiting teachers

Sources


161

Robson, J. (1996)

“Teleconferencing does

facilitate interaction

between teacher and

students and can

encourage feedback”.

Teleconferencing

encourage feedback

between students and

teacher

Technologies

and Media

Ronteltap, F., &

Eurelings, A. (2002)

“Students were asked to

give feedback on the work

of others”.

Feedback from

students

Sources

Ros i Sole, C., &

Hopkins, J. (2007)

“Different types of

feedback can be more

responsive to students’

real needs”.

“The tutor marked

assignments is the main

tool for teacher to give

individual feedback to

students”.

Types of feedback

Tutor marked

assignment used to

deliver feedback

Other

Sources

Ros i Sole, C., &

Truman, M. (2005)

“Tutors can give students

feedback more quickly

and easily”.

“Feedback may foster

students focus on the

cognitive and autonomous

Feedback from tutor

Feedback’s

encouragement

Sources

Functions


162

learning in DL”.

Rothe, J. P. (1985)

“Lack of visual feedback

appears in distance

education”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Rumble, G. (1981)

“The tutors’ role is to

provide feedback on

course materials and

students problems”.

Tutors’ role Sources

Rumble, G. (2000)

“… giving feedback to the

individual on non-

academic aptitudes and

skills”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Russo, T. C., &

Campbell, S. (2004)

“Teacher-student

interaction supported by

individual email with

feedback and evaluation”.


feedback

Technologies

and Media

Sageder, J. (1988)

“Designing feedback

includes some

components”.


Samarawickrema,

G., & Stacey, E.

(2007)

“Off-campus student-

teacher interaction was

mainly through phone

technologies, individual

Phone and email used

to deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media


163

email”.

Samarawickrema, R.

G. (2005)

“The international

students felt that feedback

and comment from their

peers was equally useful”.


Scales, K. (1984)

“Mail and telephone were

used as feedback models”.

Mail and telephone

used to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Schell, B. H., &

Thornton, J. A.

(1985)

“Lack of instructional and

assignment feedback from

the instructor may

influence students

satisfaction with the

media program”.

Importance of

feedback

Feedback from

instructor

Other

Sources

Schwittmann, D.

(1982)

“Providing regular

feedback on the learning

process is considered as a

learning prerequisites in

the target group”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Segrave, S., & Holt,

D. (2003)

“During the stimulations

students receive feedback

on key decision events”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Sewart, D. (1980) “Swift feedback is almost Only mention Other


164

entirely absent in distance

education”.

feedback

Shott, M. (1985)

“Different levels of

feedback can include

remedial teaching

comments …”.

Different types Other

Sibanda, B., &

Northcott, P. (1989)

“… give students some

immediate feedback about

question with answers”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Simich-Dudgeon, C.

(1998)

“Several experienced

web-site developers

browsed the site and gave

feedback to the technical

designer”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Simpson, H., Pugh,

H. L., & Parchman,

S. W. (1991)

“Both classes received

individual feedback on

results from the

instructor”.

Feedback from

instructor

Sources

Simpson, H., Pugh,

H. L., & Parchman,

S. W. (1993)

“Audio problems prevent

inadvertent transmission

of noise and control

feedback”.


feedback

Technologies

and Media

Sims, R. (2003) “The importance of Importance of Other


165

feedback to the learning

process cannot be

underestimated”.

feedback

Sims, R. (2008)

“Providing feedback is

seen as a benefit, and an

improvement in teaching

quality”.

Importance of

feedback

Other

Sims, R., Dobbs, G.,

& Hand, T. (2002)

“Anecdotal feedback is

suggesting a rebellion

against online materials”.

Anecdotal feedback Other

Singh, G. (2011)

“The mentors provided

feedback on the draft

abstracts using

collaboratively developed

guidelines”

Feedback from

mentors

Sources

Slagter van Tryon, P.

J., & Bishop. M. J.

(2009)

“Panel members received

feedback about the

previous round”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Slagter van Tryon, P.

J., & Bishop. M. J.

(2012)

“The panel of expert

offered extensive

qualitative feedback for

each item”.



166

Smith, K. C. (1980)

“Students can obtain some

immediate feedback

relating to their

understanding of the

subject to that point”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Smith, P. J. (2000)

“Using feedback to

modify goals or

procedures”.

Correction Functions

Smith, P. J., &

Smith, S. N. (1999)

“Off-campus delivery of

programs to Chinese

learners may require

considerable attention to

the use of feedback from

peers in study groups and

from instructors”.

Feedback from peers

and instructors

Sources

Smith, R. O. (2008)

“Students expressed that

she give the kind of

feedback which help to

create a safe

environment”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Sparkes, J. J. (1983)

“Problem in distance

study is lack of immediate

feedback”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Other


167

Stack, A. (1990)

“Making results visible

and providing units with

regular feedback about

their performance is help

create a productive

tension”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Steinkuehler, C. A.,

Derry, S. J., Hmelo-

Silver, C. E., &

Delmarcelle, M.

(2002)

“Group feedback from

both group members and

tutors can be completed at

the end of their

collaboration and then

post to the discussion

board”.

Feedback from group

and tutor

Sources

Stewart, A. R.,

Harlow, D. B., &

DeBacco, K. (2011)

“Synchronous video can

support student-instructor

interaction, such as

providing interactive

feedback”.

Interactive feedback Other

Swan, K. (2001)

“Clear feedback can

support effective design of

web-based instruction”.


Tait, A. (1993)

“One of long-lasting

quality assurance

Feedback from

students

Sources


168

activities is the collection

of feedback from

students”.

Taplin, M. (2000)

“Students evaluate their

own work and get

feedback from others

about progress”.


Taylor, J. C. (1986)

“In using the

microcomputer, students

receive immediate

diagnostic feedback on

their performance”.

Microcomputer used

to deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Taylor, J. D.,

Dearnley, C. A.,

Laxton, J. C.,

Coates, C. A.,

Treasure-Jones, T.,

Campbell, R. & Hall,

I. (2010)

“Students had positive

perceptions of getting

web- and mobile-based

feedback”.

Web and mobile

technology used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Telg, R. W. (1996) “The television production

specialists received

feedback from students

and instructors that …”.

Feedback from

students and

instructors

Sources


169

Thompson, G.

(1984)

“Varied levels of teacher

feedback and

encouragement led to drop

outs in correspondence

study”.

Quality of feedback

Drop out problem

Challenges

Thorpe, M. (1998)

“Feedback from the tutor

is vital”.

“Feedback crucial not

only…, but also in

relation to student

motivation”.

“More advanced

technology means

learning-better because of

more interactive, more

dialogue, more feedback”.

Feedback from tutor

Motivation

Technology deliver

feedback

Sources

Functions

Technologies

and Media

Treagust, D. F.,

Waldripd, B. G., &

Horley, J. F. (1993)

“Feedback for students

enrolled in distance

education”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Tsay, M., Morgan,

G., & Quick, D.

(2000)

“Adult educators need to

provide considerable

support and positive

feedback to strengthen



170

students’ learning

motivation”.

Tu, C., & Corry, M.

(2001)

“Another component of

the model, feedback,

suggests that …”.

Only mentioned

feedback

Other

Tynan, B., & O’Nell,

M. (2007)

“Home tutors engaged

more with the teacher and

sought frequent feedback

and support”.


Valcke, M. M. A., &

Martens, R. L.

(1997)

“Course developers can

facilitate the testing of

mastery of the content by

embedding questions with

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Valcke, M. M. A.,

Martens, R. L.,

Poelmans, P. H. A.

G., & Daal, M. M.

(1993)

Author mentions feedback

in learning activities,

learning process.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Velasquez, A.,

Graham, C. R., &

Osguthorpe, R.

(2013)

“Feedback provided by

Twitter and Facebook”.

Social network used to

deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media


171

Vlachopoulos, P., &

Cowan, J. (2010)

“When the model was

tested in online tutor’s

training situations,

positive feedback was

received”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Vivian, V. (1986)

“Teacher’s feedback

provided to pupil within a

time scale”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Vyas, R., Albright,

S., Walker, D.,

Zachariah, A., &

Lee, M. Y., (2010)

“Collected log data enable

preceptors to provide

student-specific

feedback”.

Feedback from log

data

Sources

Wade, C. E.,

Cameron, B.A.,

Morgan, K., &

Williams, K. C.

(2011)

“Females were more

likely to provide

constructive feedback in

chat”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Wagemans, L., &

Dochy F. (1991)

“One criteria for the

assessment of the

suitability of standards is

adequacy of feedback”



172

Walker, J. (1989)

“What is vital with

distance education

students are the amount

and the rapidity of

feedback”.

Importance of

immediate feedback

Other

Walker, J. (1994)

“Academic staff helps

academics improve

feedback on work in

progress”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Walker, K., &

Hackman, M. (1992)

“The design of the

telecommunication system

may convey immediate

feedback”.

Telecommunication

system used to deliver

feedback

Technologies

and Media

Wang, C., Shannon,

D. M., & Ross, M. E.

(2013)

“The quality of the

feedback provided on

graded assignment may

satisfied students”.


Wang, X.,

Dannenhoffer III, J.

F., Davidson, B. D.,

& Spector, J. M.

(2005)

“Remote students found it

was difficult to get in-

depth feedback from

remote professors”.

Difficult Challenges


173

Warner, L. (1993)

“This group provided

direct feedback on the

programme by

teleconference”.

Teleconference used

to deliver feedback

Technologies

and Media

Watson, S. (2013)

“Getting feedback on

assignment drafts leading

to the acquisition of

ancillary factual and

conceptual knowledge”.

Improvement Functions

Weges, H. G., &

Portier, S. J. (1997)

“Within the complete

printed version of the

course the exercise are all

open-ended questions and

no differentiated feedback

can be provided”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Wertsch, J. V.

(2002)

“There is no clear

feedback to allow

participants to discern

whether their point is

clear”.


Whelan, R. (2008)

“The survey instrument

was developed in a

collaborative process of

Only mention

feedback

Other


174

selection, testing,

feedback and refinement”.

White, C. (2005)

“Student feedback does

not necessarily inform and

influence change …”.

Feedback from

student

Sources

White, C. J. (1997)

“One example of social

strategy is working with

others to solve a problem,

share information or gain

feedback on a task”.


Wiesenberg, F., &

Stacey, E. (2005)

“Use student feedback as

teachers’ courses

proceed”.

Feedback from

student

Sources

Wikeley, F., &

Muschamp, Y.

(2004)

“Using email as a method

of giving feedback on

written work”.


feedback

Technologies

and Media

Wille’n, B. (1983)

“Using the telephone has

been the main method to

establishing contact”.

Telephone used to

establish contact

Technologies

and Media

Willen, B. (1988)

In Open university, the

systematic using types of

feedback makes the

Only mention types of

feedback

Other


175

instructional approach and

the teaching more open”.

Williams, K. C.,

Morgan, K., &

Cameron, B. A.

(2011)

“Students need to be

helped to understand the

benefits of constructive

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Williams, S. W.,

Watkins, K., Daley,

B., Courtenay, B.,

Davis, M., &

Dymock, D. (2001)

“Facilitators are expected

to play a vital role in

assisting and supporting

participants by sending

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Willmott, G., &

King, B. (1984)

“Many students, by their

supportive comments and

by their feedback on

particular parts …”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Wilson, M. S. (2001)

“Communication

feedback loops are often

more limited in online

situations”.

Communication

feedback

Other

Wright, C., &

Conroy, C. (1988)

“Positive feedback is

best”.

Positive feedback Other


176

“Time of receiving

feedback is before the

students write the final

examination”.

Xiao, J. (2012)

“Teachers should be able

to provide accurate

feedback, encouragement

and support for the

student”.

Feedback from

teachers

Quality of feedback

Sources

Challenges

Yasmin, Dr. (2013)

“Feedback from alumni is

often a significant

demotivating factor for

enrolled students”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Yildiz, S., &

Bichelmeyer, B. A.

(2003)

“Students answer

instructor’s questions, also

give feedback to peers”.

Feedback form peers Sources

Youngblood, P.,

Trede, F., & Corpo,

S. D. (2001)

“Providing encouraging,

constructive feedback may

foster contributions”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

ZajkowskiDale, M.

E. (1993)

“Feedback was not sought

from inquirers who …”.

Only mention

feedback

Other


177

Zembylas, M. (2008)

“Some students expressed

their feelings about online

learning, including getting

feedback”.

Only mention

feedback

Other

Zembylas, M., &

Vrasidas, C. (2007)

“A teacher expressed that

it is hard to get feedback

from students”.

Only mention

feedback

Other